DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-15, 17-35, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurudoss (US 2016/0306523) in view of Harrison (US 2019/0266862).
Regarding claim 1, Gurudoss discloses a computer-implemented method of configuring a door monitoring system, the method comprising:
displaying a floor plan (figures 2-4) of a building comprising one or more doors each comprising a sensing device 12, 14 (paragraph 14);
receiving a user input indicative of a selection of one of the one or more doors (p. 27); and
based on the user input, monitoring a status of the selected door, wherein
monitoring a status of the selected door comprises monitoring whether the sensing device of the selected door has been triggered (p. 31-p. 35, see figure 4: “Door open Alarm” popup), and
wherein, based on the user input, a hardwired connection is established between the selected door (p. 14) and a computing apparatus 18, 36, of the door monitoring system whereby data from the selected door may be obtained via an end-to-end, hardwired connection (figure 1).
Gurudoss does not disclose the sensing device being a ligature-detection device. Harrison teaches the use of a ligature-detection device 101 (p. 25, p. 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a ligature-detection device to the method of Gurudoss as taught by Harrison for the purpose of effectively monitoring doors of the building.
Regarding claim 17, Gurudoss discloses a computer-implemented method of identifying, by a door monitoring system, a change of status at a monitored door, the method comprising:
displaying a floor plan (figures 2-4) of a building comprising one or more monitored doors, each monitored door comprising a sensing device 12, 14 (p. 14), wherein each monitored door is monitored via a hardwired connection between the respective door (p. 14) and a computing apparatus 18, 36, of the door monitoring system whereby data from each monitored door may be obtained via an end-to-end, hardwired connection (figure 1);
identifying that a status of a first monitored door of the one or more monitored doors has changed, wherein identifying that a status of the first monitored door has changed comprises determining that the sensing device of the first monitored door has been triggered (p. 31- p. 25); and
indicating that a status of the first monitored door has changed by modifying the
manner in which the first monitored door is presented on the displayed floor plan (figure 4: “Door open Alarm” popup, p. 31-p.35).
Gurudoss does not disclose the sensing device being a ligature-detection device. Harrison teaches the use of a ligature-detection device 101 (p. 25, p. 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a ligature-detection device to the method of Gurudoss as taught by Harrison for the purpose of effectively monitoring doors of the building.
Regarding claim 2, Gurudoss discloses wherein the user input comprises use of a drag-and-drop functionality to select a door for monitoring (p. 28).
Regarding claim 3, Gurudoss discloses wherein the drag-and-drop functionality
comprises dragging and dropping an icon over a displayed door to select that door for monitoring (p. 28, figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Gurudoss discloses wherein the user input associates an output of the selected door with an IP address for receiving status updates from the selected door (p. 27).
Regarding claim 5, Gurudoss discloses monitoring a status of the selected door comprises: determining whether a status of the selected door has changed (p. 35); and
responsive to determining that a status of the selected door has changed, modifying
the manner in which the selected door is presented on the displayed floor plan (p. 31-p. 35).
Regarding claim 6, Gurudoss discloses wherein monitoring a status of the selected door comprises transmitting a status update request to the selected door to determine at least one of: whether the selected door is open or closed (figure 4: “Door open Alarm” popup); whether the ligature-detection device of the selected door has been triggered; whether the status of the selected door or of the or ligature-detection device can be accurately determined; and whether the selected door has responded to the status update request.
Regarding claims 7 and 31, Gurudoss (modified by Harrison) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further discloses if a status of the selected door changes, providing an indication of the change of status (p. 31, p. 35), but does not disclose the indication being an auditory indication. Harrison teaches the use of an auditory indication (p. 73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an auditory indication to the method of Gurudoss as taught by Harrison for the purpose of effectively indicating an alarm signal.
Regarding claim 8, Gurudoss discloses if the sensing device of the selected door is triggered, determining a duration for which the sensing device has been triggered (p. 31).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Gurudoss (modified by Harrison) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 8, and further discloses providing an indication that the sensing device of the selected door has been triggered, wherein the indication is based on the duration for which the sensing device has been triggered (p. 31), but does not disclose the indication being an auditory indication. Harrison teaches the use of an auditory indication (p. 73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an auditory indication to the method of Gurudoss as taught by Harrison for the purpose of effectively indicating an alarm signal.
Regarding claims 10, 21, and 32, Gurudoss (modified by Harrison) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 9, and further discloses when the sensing device has been triggered for less than a threshold duration, a first type of indication is applied; and when the sensing device has been triggered for more than a threshold duration, a second type of indication is applied (p. 31, p. 35), but does not disclose the indication being an auditory indication. Harrison teaches the use of an auditory indication (p. 73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an auditory indication to the method of Gurudoss as taught by Harrison for the purpose of effectively indicating an alarm signal.
Regarding claim 11, Gurudoss discloses modifying the manner in which the selected door is presented on the displayed floor plan to indicate that the sensing device of the selected door has been triggered, wherein the manner in which the selected door is presented on the displayed floor plan is modified based on the duration for which the sensing device has been triggered (p. 31-p. 35).
Regarding claim 12, Gurudoss discloses wherein the manner in which the selected door is presented on the displayed floor plan is modified such that: when the sensing device has been triggered for less than a threshold duration, a first type of visual modification is applied; and when the sensing device has been triggered for more than a threshold duration, a second type of visual modification is applied (p. 31, p. 35).
Regarding claims 13 and 24, Gurudoss (modified by Harrison) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 10, but does not disclose the threshold duration being between 2 and 7 seconds. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION, A) Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation, note In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). The concept of changing the duration in this claim involves only change of proportions of the materials, or the result of “routine optimization”. It would have been a “routine optimization” for a person having ordinary skill in the art to elect the threshold duration being between 2 and 7 seconds in Gurudoss for the purpose of effectively monitoring the movement of the door.
Regarding claim 14, Gurudoss discloses configuring the door monitoring system to additionally monitor the status of one or more staff alarm devices 18 and/or one or more patient call devices (p. 14).
Regarding claim 15, Gurudoss discloses configuring the door monitoring system to additionally monitor the status of one or more door observation panels 18, 36.
Regarding claim 18, Gurudoss discloses wherein identifying that a status of the first
monitored door has changed comprises determining that the first monitored door has been opened or closed (figure 4: “Door open Alarm” popup).
Regarding claim 19, Gurudoss discloses if the sensing device of the first monitored door is triggered, determining a duration for which the sensing device has been triggered (p. 31).
Regarding claim 22, Gurudoss discloses modifying the manner in which the first monitored door is presented on the displayed floor plan to indicate that the sensing device of the first monitored door has been triggered, wherein the manner in which the first monitored door is presented on the displayed floor plan is modified based on the duration for which the sensing device has been triggered (p. 31-p. 35).
Regarding claim 23, Gurudoss discloses wherein the manner in which the first monitored door is presented on the displayed floor plan is modified such that: when the sensing device has been triggered for less than a threshold duration, a first type of visual modification is applied; and when the ligature-detection device has been triggered for more than a threshold duration, a second type of visual modification is applied (p. 31).
Regarding claim 25, Gurudoss (modified by Harrison) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 17, but does not disclose determining that a fault with the ligature-detection device has been detected. Harrison further teaches the use of determining that a fault with the ligature-detection device has been detected (p. 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining that a fault with the ligature-detection device has been detected to the method of Gurudoss as taught by Harrison for the purpose of effectively identifying that a status of the first monitored door has changed.
Regarding claim 26, Gurudoss (modified by Harrison) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 17, but does not disclose determining that the state of the first monitored door or of the ligature-detection device can no longer be accurately determined. Harrison further teaches the use of determining that the state of a first monitored door or of the ligature-detection device can no longer be accurately determined(p. 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining that the state of the first monitored door or of the ligature-detection device can no longer be accurately determined to the method of Gurudoss as taught by Harrison for the purpose of effectively identifying that a status of the first monitored door has changed.
Regarding claim 27, Gurudoss discloses wherein identifying that a status of a first monitored door has changed comprises determining that the first monitored door or the sensing device has not responded to a status update request (p. 31-p. 35).
Regarding claim 28, Gurudoss discloses wherein modifying the manner in which the first monitored door is presented on the displayed floor plan comprises at least one of: visually emphasizing the first monitored door (p. 35); changing a colour associated with the first monitored door; and adding the first monitored door to a displayed list of doors associated with having an alarm, having a fault, and/or being opened.
Regarding claim 29, Gurudoss discloses wherein the modification in how the first monitored door is presented on the displayed floor plan differs based on which aspect of the monitored door's status has changed (p. 35).
Regarding claim 30, Gurudoss discloses logging, in a database, an indication that a status of the first monitored door has changed (p. 31-p. 35).
Regarding claim 33, Gurudoss discloses periodically polling the one or more monitored doors for an indication of their respective statuses (p. 23, p. 25).
Regarding claim 34, Gurudoss discloses identifying that a status of a monitored staff alarm device 18 or patient call device has changed; and indicating that a status of the monitored staff alarm device or patient call device has changed by modifying the manner in which the staff alarm device or patient call device is presented on the displayed floor plan (figure 5).
Regarding claim 35, Gurudoss discloses identifying that a monitored door observation panel has been opened (figure 4: “Door open Alarm” popup); and recording in memory an indication that the monitored door observation panel has been opened (figure 4, p. 16).
Regarding claim 38, Gurudoss discloses a computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method of configuring a door monitoring system (p. 16), the method comprising:
displaying a floor plan (figures 2-4) of a building comprising one or more doors each comprising a sensing device 12, 14 (paragraph 14);
receiving a user input indicative of a selection of one of the one or more doors (p. 27); and
based on the user input, monitoring a status of the selected door, wherein
monitoring a status of the selected door comprises monitoring whether the sensing device of the selected door has been triggered (p. 31-p. 35, see figure 4: “Door open Alarm” popup), and
wherein, based on the user input, a hardwired connection is established between the selected door (p. 14) and a computing apparatus 18, 36, of the door monitoring system whereby data from the selected door may be obtained via an end-to-end, hardwired connection (figure 1).
Gurudoss does not disclose the sensing device being a ligature-detection device. Harrison teaches the use of a ligature-detection device 101 (p. 25, p. 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a ligature-detection device to the computer-readable medium of Gurudoss as taught by Harrison for the purpose of effectively monitoring doors of the building.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurudoss in view of Harrison as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vu (US 2007/0192910).
Regarding claim 16, Gurudoss (modified by Harrison) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose configuring the door monitoring system to additionally monitor the status of one or more vital sign monitoring devices. Vu teaches the use of configuring a monitoring system to additionally monitor a status of one or more vital sign monitoring devices (p. 216, figures 22A-22b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include configuring the door monitoring system to additionally monitor the status of one or more vital sign
monitoring devices to the method of Gurudoss (modified by Harrison) as taught by Vu for the purpose of effectively collecting more information in the system.
Regarding claim 36, Gurudoss (modified by Harrison) discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 17, but does not disclose identifying that a status of a monitored vital sign monitoring device has changed; and indicating that a status of the monitored vital sign monitoring device has changed by modifying the manner in which the vital sign monitoring device is presented on the
displayed floor plan. Vu teaches the use of identifying that a status of a monitored vital sign monitoring device has changed (p. 216); and indicating that a status of the monitored vital sign monitoring device has changed by modifying the manner in which the vital sign monitoring device is presented on a displayed floor plan (p. 216, figures 22A-22B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include identifying that a status of a monitored vital sign monitoring device has changed; and indicating that a status of the monitored vital sign monitoring device has changed by modifying the manner in which the vital sign monitoring device is presented on the displayed floor plan to the method of Gurudoss (modified by Harrison) as taught by Vu for the purpose of effectively collecting more information in the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Al-Ali and Lanwehr disclose monitoring systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH V LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2970. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH V LA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
ANH V. LA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
Al
March 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights