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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,4 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (US 5266944 A) in view of Attar (US 20080218335 A1).
Claim 1. Carroll teaches a security system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of monitoring devices respectively wearable by parolees, wherein each of the monitoring devices is associated with a unique identifier of a parolee and a threat level of the parolee and includes a transmitter to emit one or more signals containing said unique identifier and other status information
(Col 3 lines 15-25 each individual being monitored is fitted with an electronic bracelet or anklet...includes a transmitter that periodically transmits a identifying radio wave signal (unique to each tag, and hence to each individual) over a short range (e.g., 150 feet).
Col 6 lines 45-55 The information in the response file may include, e.g., a description of the abuser, including a physical description and/or psychological profile; a description of his or her automobile; a brief history of prior violations of the abuser (i.e., the abuser's "record"), including an indication as to whether the abuser is likely to be armed; (e.g. threat level and other status information));
one or more proximity sensors configured to detect the one or more signals emitted by each of the plurality of monitoring devices and transmit said unique identifiers and other status information
(Col 12 lines 50-65 the repeater circuit 27 may be positioned outside in the front yard of the victim's premises, or near the front door.);
a transponder configured to relay the one or more signals from each of the one or more proximity sensors to a security panel contained within a premises to be protected by the security system
(Col 13 lines 55-65 the ID signal 16 is picked-up by such repeater circuit and relayed to the RMD 20. The RMD 20, as described more fully below, thus responds to the receipt of either the ID signal 16 or the retransmitted ID signal 16'.
Col 16 lines e.g. (19) The RMD 20 may be constructed substantially in the same manner as is shown in the previously cited Pauley et al. patent for the Field Monitoring Device (FMD). Such FMD is essentially a microprocessor-based system that includes a receiver circuit for receiving the ID signa
e.g. receiver circuit is the transponder);
and the security panel, wherein the security panel alerts occupants of the premises that one or more of the proximity sensors has detected the signals emitted from any of the plurality of monitoring devices and alerts occupants of the threat level of the parolee
(Col 14 lines 20-35 (11) Upon receiving a valid ID signal 16 or 16' (hereafter, it is to be understood that reference to the ID signal 16 also includes the retransmitted ID signal 16'), the RMD 20 generates an alarm that notifies the victim 24 of the imminent approach of the abuser 12. Such alarm may be audio, e.g., beeps, and/or visual, e.g., a flashing light, or other appropriate warning signals.);
wherein the alerts from the security panel are further transmitted to the central monitoring facility
(Col 14 lines 45-55 (12) Receipt of a valid ID signal 16 further causes the RMD 20 to immediately establish a telecommunicative link with a central processing unit (CPU) 34 at a central monitoring station 36. ).
wherein a second set of one or more proximity sensors located at a second premises are configured to detect the one or more signals emitted by the monitoring devices when in range and transmit said unique identifiers and other status information
(Col 17 lines 20-25 As seen in FIG. 4, there is shown a plurality of remote monitoring locations 60a, 60b, . . . 60n, each of which may comprise the residence or work place of a potential victim.
Col 9 lines 55-67 the CPU is put on notice that the triggerable transmitter tag, and hence the first person who is carrying the transmitter tag, has come within the second range of the monitoring device.
Col 12 lines 60-67 another strategic location that will help sense the approach of the abuser 12 towards the victim's residence or other place of abode or work. As many additional repeater circuits as are required may likewise be positioned around the location of the victim in order to sense the approach of the abuser 12.).
Carroll further discloses the process of having a database for the location of the victim (Col 15 lines 5-15) but does not specifically disclose wherein the central monitoring facility includes a database for storing and accessing GPS-provided geolocation data and data provided from the security panel of the security system; and wherein the monitoring devices includes a GPS antenna to provide geolocation data to a central monitoring facility and emit geolocation information detectable by the one or more proximity sensors
However Attar teaches wherein the central monitoring facility includes a database for storing and accessing GPS-provided geolocation data and data provided from the security panel of the security system
([0016] As a possible sixth component, the bracelet may incorporate a Global Positioning System (GPS), to help locate the bracelet carrier.)
; and wherein the monitoring devices includes a GPS antenna to provide geolocation data to a central monitoring facility and emit geolocation information detectable by the one or more proximity sensors
([0018] The Command Center, CC, has four interacting data bases,... [0020] This data base is denoted Locations Data Base or LDB.[0023] Once the CC receives an alarm, it immediately identifies the offender, the location of the proximity contact and the closest authority that may be contacted and summoned to help at such location.
[0027] In still another embodiment of this invention, the CC continually probes the ATs and obtains a signal back that identifies the transmitter and records its location.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the central monitoring facility and monitoring device as taught by Attar within the system of Carroll for the purpose of precisely locating, recording and tracking events of an offender in an effort to quickly deploy first responders at a potential crime scene.
Claim 4. Carroll and Attar teach the security system of claim 1, and discloses the use of a transmitter having a range of 150 feet (Col 3 lines 20-25) and proximity sensors which are arranged in various remote places (Col 12 lines 55-65) but does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more proximity sensors are evenly spread 30-150 feet apart defining a wireless perimeter
However, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to arrange one or more proximity sensors evenly spread to 30-150 feet apart in an effort to obtain valid and optimal signal strength from the proximity sensors.
Claim 5. Carroll and Attar teach the security system of claim 1, wherein the alerts generated by the security panel from detection of signals emitted by the monitoring device are also communicated to local law enforcement departments
(Carroll Col 24 lines 1-10 Upon receipt of a valid ID signal 134, regardless of whether transmitted directly from the tag 130 or from the repeater 137, the TMD is programmed to take appropriate action, e.g., warn the victim, activate monitoring sensing equipment 138, establish telecommunicative contact with a central monitoring station from which notice can be given to responsible agencies, summon the police, etc.).
Claim 6. Carroll and Attar teach the security system of claim 1, wherein the alters generated by the security panel are communicated to a mobile application accessible by the owner of the premises, local law enforcement, and/or the central monitoring facility
(Carroll Col 24 lines 1-10 Upon receipt of a valid ID signal 134, regardless of whether transmitted directly from the tag 130 or from the repeater 137, the TMD is programmed to take appropriate action, e.g., warn the victim, activate monitoring sensing equipment 138, establish telecommunicative contact with a central monitoring station from which notice can be given to responsible agencies, summon the police, etc.
Col 24 lines 20-25 Thus, the victim's receiver is much like a "pager" that is tuned to receive the ID signal from the abuser. ).
Claim 7. Carroll and Attar teach the security system of claim 1, wherein the signals emitted from the monitoring device communicate date and time information to the security panel via the proximity sensors
(Col 17 lines 1-5 clock circuits for logging the various times when the ID signal is received (or not received).
[0023] The dispatched officers will have then with them: 1. the identity of the criminal, 2. his location, 3. a time stamp of the event, 4. the type of location where the criminal entered and/or the name and ID of the child near him. e.g. A timestamp is a digital record of the date and time an event occurred, ).
Claim 8. Carroll and Attar teach the security system of claim 7, wherein the database at the central monitoring agency stores the date and time information
([0023] The dispatched officers will have then with them: 1. the identity of the criminal, 2. his location, 3. a time stamp of the event, 4. the type of location where the criminal entered and/or the name and ID of the child near him. e.g. A timestamp is a digital record of the date and time an event occurred, ).
Claim 9. Carroll and Attar teach the security system of claim 1, wherein the security panel includes a memory for storing information transmitted by the proximity sensors, wherein the information comprises the unique identifier of the monitoring device, GPS information, and/or date and time information
([0023] The dispatched officers will have then with them: 1. the identity of the criminal, 2. his location, 3. a time stamp of the event, 4. the type of location where the criminal entered and/or the name and ID of the child near him. e.g. A timestamp is a digital record of the date and time an event occurred,
[0017] The location is determined via a transmitted code from the TT or by the GPS component in the bracelet. This information, together with the offender's code, is instantly and automatically transmitted to the command center, most preferably wirelessly.).
Claim 10. Carroll and Attar teach the security system of claim 1, wherein the transponder is a component within the security panel
Col 16 lines e.g. (19) The RMD 20 may be constructed substantially in the same manner as is shown in the previously cited Pauley et al. patent for the Field Monitoring Device (FMD). Such FMD is essentially a microprocessor-based system that includes a receiver circuit for receiving the ID signal, e.g. receiver circuit is the transponder.)
Claim(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of Shapiro (US 20190208363 A1).
Claim 11. Carroll teaches a security system, comprising:
a plurality of monitoring devices, wherein the monitoring devices each includes a transmitter to emit one or more signals containing a unique identifier associated with the monitoring device and other status information
(Col 3 lines 15-25 each individual being monitored is fitted with an electronic bracelet or anklet...includes a transmitter that periodically transmits a identifying radio wave signal (unique to each tag, and hence to each individual) over a short range (e.g., 150 feet).
Col 6 lines 45-55 The information in the response file may include, e.g., a description of the abuser, including a physical description and/or psychological profile; a description of his or her automobile; a brief history of prior violations of the abuser (i.e., the abuser's "record"), including an indication as to whether the abuser is likely to be armed; (e.g. threat level and other status information));
one or more proximity sensors at a first known location configured to detect the one or more signals emitted by the monitoring device and transmit said unique identifier and other status information
(Col 12 lines 50-65 the repeater circuit 27 may be positioned outside in the front yard of the victim's premises, or near the front door.);
a transmitter configured to relay the one or more signals from the one or more proximity sensors to a security panel
(Col 13 lines 55-65 the ID signal 16 is picked-up by such repeater circuit and relayed to the RMD 20. The RMD 20, as described more fully below, thus responds to the receipt of either the ID signal 16 or the retransmitted ID signal 16'.
Col 16 lines e.g. (19) The RMD 20 may be constructed substantially in the same manner as is shown in the previously cited Pauley et al. patent for the Field Monitoring Device (FMD). Such FMD is essentially a microprocessor-based system that includes a receiver circuit for receiving the ID signa
e.g. receiver circuit is the transponder);
wherein the monitoring device is wearable and/or attachable to a dependent
(Col 12 lines 30-35 An abuser 12 is fitted with an electronic tag 14. This tag may be placed anywhere on the body of the abuser, but is typically fitted around the ankle.);
wherein the one or more proximity sensors are placed at one or more known location of the dependent
(Col 17 lines 35-45 it is to be understood that such repeater circuits may be selectively positioned around and/or in each of the remote monitoring locations 60a, 60b, . . . 60n, as needed or desired.);
wherein a second set of one or more proximity sensors are located at a second known location and configured to detect the one or more signals emitted by the monitoring device and transmit said unique identifier and other status information to a security panel
(Col 17 lines 20-25 As seen in FIG. 4, there is shown a plurality of remote monitoring locations 60a, 60b, . . . 60n, each of which may comprise the residence or work place of a potential victim.
Col 9 lines 55-67 the CPU is put on notice that the triggerable transmitter tag, and hence the first person who is carrying the transmitter tag, has come within the second range of the monitoring device.);
and wherein the security system defines a wireless tether to the dependent to track the location of said dependent between the known locations of the dependent
(Col 18 lines 25-30 These FMDs are configured to receive and log the ID signals so long as the tag is within range of the FMD.
Col 18 lines 40-50 As soon as an abuser fitted with tag 14b enters or approaches the residence 60b of a victim that he or she has been ordered not to contact, the ID signal 16b is received by the RMD 20b, and the RMD issues an alarm indicating the detected approach of the abuser.
e.g. abuser is tethered to FMD and restricted to certain areas such as victim’s residence)
; and the security panel, wherein the security panel generates an alert that one or more of the proximity sensors no longer detects the one or more signals emitted from the monitoring device
(Col 18 30-40 Thus, the comings and goings of each abuser at their respective residences may be monitored in conventional manner, by noting whether or not the respective ID signal is received by the FMD, as is commonly done with EHAM systems known in the art.
Col 19 lines 40-55 Assuming that the tag 14 is within range of an FMD, RMD...The absence of the receipt of an ID signal during this prescribed time period, or for two or more consecutive such time periods, can thus be used to provide an indication that a tamper event has likely occurred.)
Carroll further discloses the process of sending notification when a dependent has left and having probation requirements to remain at certain locations at specified times (Col 3 lines 1-10) but does not specifically disclose wherein the alert generated by the security panel includes a threat level that increases in intensity as the monitoring device moves away from the one or more proximity sensors located at one of the known locations of the dependent.
However, Shapiro teaches wherein the alert generated by the security panel includes a threat level that increases in intensity as the monitoring device moves away from the one or more proximity sensors located at one of the known locations of the dependent
([0168] if the servant device 1 approaches and/or exceeds that distance, an alarm can be set to go off warning the master device 600 that the servant device 1 is approaching the perimeter and/or has breached the same. The alarm can be an auditory, a tactile, e.g., vibratory, and/or a visual alarm that may increase in intensity and/or frequency as the distance of the servant device 1 away from the master device 600 increases.
[0174] subservient device 1 and/or master monitoring device 600 may include a unique code, such as a radio frequency identification (RFID) code, identifying that device, such that any and all servant devices, master devices, relays, and/or beacons, ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the security panel includes a threat level that increases in intensity as the monitoring device moves away from the one or more proximity sensors located at one of the known locations of the dependent as taught by Shapiro within the system of Carroll for the purpose of notifying a guardian when an individual has left a location during unauthorized time schedules.
Claim 12. Carroll and Shapiro teach the security system of claim 11, wherein the alert generated by the security panel is transmitted to local law enforcement and/or a central monitoring facility
(Carroll Col 24 lines 1-10 Upon receipt of a valid ID signal 134, regardless of whether transmitted directly from the tag 130 or from the repeater 137, the TMD is programmed to take appropriate action, e.g., warn the victim, activate monitoring sensing equipment 138, establish telecommunicative contact with a central monitoring station from which notice can be given to responsible agencies, summon the police, etc.).
Claim 13. Carroll and Shapiro teach the security system of claim 12, wherein the central monitoring facility includes a database for storing GPS information, monitoring device status information, and/or date and time information transmitted by the one or more proximity sensors.
(Shapiro [0218] [0218] In such an instance, the communications module 16 may include a global positioning satellite (GPS) receiver (or other geolocation receiver)... 19. Particularly, in terms of functioning, the CPU 12 may be configured to receive geolocation data, such as from the geolocation receiver, or other location identification asset, such as based on the received geolocation data, e.g., relative to the geographic region.
[0084] For instance, in certain instances, the geolocation and/or status monitoring device, e.g., bracelet or pendant, may be configured for communicating with a controlling device, e.g., a master device,... server associated with a database.
[0187][0190]).
Claim 14. Carroll and Shapiro teach the security system of claim 12, wherein the monitoring device comprises a GPS antenna and the GPS data of the GPS antenna is accessible by a guardian of the dependent, local law enforcement, and/or the central monitoring facility
(Shapiro [0218] [0218] In such an instance, the communications module 16 may include a global positioning satellite (GPS) receiver (or other geolocation receiver)... 19. Particularly, in terms of functioning, the CPU 12 may be configured to receive geolocation data, such as from the geolocation receiver, or other location identification asset, such as based on the received geolocation data, e.g., relative to the geographic region.
[0084] For instance, in certain instances, the geolocation and/or status monitoring device, e.g., bracelet or pendant, may be configured for communicating with a controlling device, e.g., a master device,... server associated with a database.).
Claim 15. Carroll and Shapiro teach the security system of claim 12, wherein the security panel generates an alert sent to a mobile application accessible by a guardian of the dependent, local law enforcement, and/or the central monitoring facility
([0084] to alert a user, parent, or third party monitor...portable computing device [0108] The software application ).
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of Edwards (US 20120257061 A1).
Claim 16. Carroll teaches a method of tracking a person of interest, comprising:
attaching or securing a monitoring device to the person of interest
(Col 3 lines 15-25 each individual being monitored is fitted with an electronic bracelet or anklet...includes a transmitter that periodically transmits a identifying radio wave signal (unique to each tag, and hence to each individual) over a short range (e.g., 150 feet).);
detecting the presence of one or more signals generated by the monitoring device via one or more proximity sensors at a first location, wherein the signals include status information associated with the monitoring device
(Col 12 lines 50-65 the repeater circuit 27 may be positioned outside in the front yard of the victim's premises, or near the front door.);
transmitting the one or more signals and the status information from the one or more proximity sensors to a security panel via a transponder
(Col 13 lines 55-65 the ID signal 16 is picked-up by such repeater circuit and relayed to the RMD 20. The RMD 20, as described more fully below, thus responds to the receipt of either the ID signal 16 or the retransmitted ID signal 16'.
Col 16 lines e.g. (19) The RMD 20 may be constructed substantially in the same manner as is shown in the previously cited Pauley et al. patent for the Field Monitoring Device (FMD). Such FMD is essentially a microprocessor-based system that includes a receiver circuit for receiving the ID signa e.g. receiver circuit is the transponder)
; and generating an alert via the security panel when the one or more proximity sensors start detecting signals emitted from the monitoring device and/or when the one or more proximity sensors cease detecting signals emitted from the monitoring device
(Col 14 lines 20-35 (11) Upon receiving a valid ID signal 16 or 16' (hereafter, it is to be understood that reference to the ID signal 16 also includes the retransmitted ID signal 16'), the RMD 20 generates an alarm that notifies the victim 24 of the imminent approach of the abuser 12. Such alarm may be audio, e.g., beeps, and/or visual, e.g., a flashing light, or other appropriate warning signals.);
Col 18 30-40 Thus, the comings and goings of each abuser at their respective residences may be monitored in conventional manner, by noting whether or not the respective ID signal is received by the FMD, as is commonly done with EHAM systems known in the art.);
wherein the one or more proximity sensors are programmed to detect signals generated by a plurality of monitoring devices
Col 14 lines 20-35 (11) Upon receiving a valid ID signal 16 or 16' (hereafter, it is to be understood that reference to the ID signal 16 also includes the retransmitted ID signal 16'), the RMD 20 generates an alarm that notifies the victim 24 of the imminent approach of the abuser 12. Such alarm may be audio, e.g., beeps, and/or visual, e.g., a flashing light, or other appropriate warning signals.);
wherein the one or more signals generated by the monitoring device are detectable by proximity sensors located at a second location
(Col 17 lines 20-25 As seen in FIG. 4, there is shown a plurality of remote monitoring locations 60a, 60b, . . . 60n, each of which may comprise the residence or work place of a potential victim.
Col 9 lines 55-67 the CPU is put on notice that the triggerable transmitter tag, and hence the first person who is carrying the transmitter tag, has come within the second range of the monitoring device.
Col 12 lines 60-67 another strategic location that will help sense the approach of the abuser 12 towards the victim's residence or other place of abode or work. As many additional repeater circuits as are required may likewise be positioned around the location of the victim in order to sense the approach of the abuser 12.).
Carroll further discloses using different alerts and notification is sent to a central monitoring facility of the proximity ranges of the monitoring devices but do not specifically disclose wherein the security panel is configured to communicate with one or more other security panels in order to send potential threat notifications to said one or more other security panels.
However, Edwards teaches wherein the security panel is configured to communicate with one or more other security panels located in a similar geographic area to send a potential threat notification to the one or more other security systems
([0009] a number of homes 12, 14, each protected by a security system 18, including an alarm panel and a number of intrusion detection devices (e.g., perimeter sensors, motion detectors, etc.).
[0021] As a second step in set up of a camera 32, camera 32 may be linked to the homeowner's security system 18. The homeowner may choose this option and the link will be automatically established. If this link is established, then an alarm event in the security system for any home in the neighborhood (including the homeowner selecting this option) will automatically trigger all cameras 32 in the neighborhood to wake up and begin recording to memory 48.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the security panel as taught by Edwards within the system of Carroll for the purpose of notifying of a criminal event in the neighborhood and enhancing tracking techniques and path of the criminal.
Claim 17. Carroll and Edwards teach the method of claim 16, wherein the information associated with the monitoring device is communicated to a central monitoring facility and/or local law enforcement
(Col 13 lines 60-67 such circuits are simply programmed to recognize the receipt of a valid ID signal from a tag or from a repeater) so as to alert the victim 24, and to notify the central monitoring station 36, of the detected approach of the abuser 14.).
Claim 18. Carroll and Edwards teach the method of claim 16, wherein the information comprises GPS information, a unique identifier associated with the monitoring device, and/or date and time information
(Col 3 lines 20-25 "tag", includes a transmitter that periodically transmits a identifying radio wave signal (unique to each tag, and hence to each individual) over a short range (e.g., 150 feet).
Col 22 lines 10-20 Such devices will typically include at least a recorder (or equivalent) to record the number of times a valid ID signal is received, including the time of day when such signals are received.)
Claim 20. Carroll and Edwards teach the method of claim 17, wherein the central monitoring facility includes a database to store the information communicated from the security system
([0031] The motion detection and tracking processors 40, 42 may also be used to enhance enforcement of restraining order or sex offender rules. In this example, always-on cameras 32 and processors 40, 42 with face recognition capabilities can detect human faces and compare the facial characteristics of detected faces with faces within an offender database and trigger an email alert or other type of alarm if a registered sex offender or a specific individual with a restraining order either enters the neighborhood, ).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll, Attar and further in view of DeVries (US 20190285748 A1).
Claim 2. Carroll and Attar teach the security system of claim 1, and further discloses using different alerts and notification is sent to a central monitoring facility of the proximity ranges of the monitoring devices but do not specifically disclose wherein the threat level alert by the security panel increases in intensity as the monitoring device moves closer to the proximity sensors.
However, DeVries teaches wherein the threat level alert by the security panel increases in intensity as the monitoring device moves closer to the proximity sensors
([0107] Returning to the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 3, the intruder detection system 100 may include an identification system 200 configured to determine whether one or more persons identified by the RFRLS 300
[0111] An example of varying intensity or importance of an alert includes generating a low intensity alert for an intruder that has just entered the area 20 and is located near the outer boundary of the area 20. As the intruder continues on into the area 20 and moves closer to a higher value subzone (e.g., closer to a building 30), the intensity of the alert may increase. For instance, the alert may change from a simple bound box identifier for the intruder on the display 202 to both a flashing identifier on the display 202 and an audible alert.
[0112] The RFRLS 300 may provide location information with respect to an RFID device 330 carried by the person. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the threat level alert by the security panel increases in intensity as the monitoring device moves closer to the proximity sensors as taught by DeVries within the system of Carroll for the purpose of enhancing the system to allow an individual advanced notice of unlawful entry and take the necessary steps to prevent criminal activity.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll, Attar and further in view of Edwards (US 20120257061 A1).
Claim 3. Carroll and Attar teach the security system of claim 1, and further discloses networked control panels which are all connected to a central facility but do not specifically disclose wherein the security panel is configured to communicate with one or more other security panels located in a similar geographic area to send a potential threat notification to the one or more other security systems.
However, Edwards teaches wherein the security panel is configured to communicate with one or more other security panels located in a similar geographic area to send a potential threat notification to the one or more other security systems
([0009] a number of homes 12, 14, each protected by a security system 18, including an alarm panel and a number of intrusion detection devices (e.g., perimeter sensors, motion detectors, etc.).
[0021] As a second step in set up of a camera 32, camera 32 may be linked to the homeowner's security system 18. The homeowner may choose this option and the link will be automatically established. If this link is established, then an alarm event in the security system for any home in the neighborhood (including the homeowner selecting this option) will automatically trigger all cameras 32 in the neighborhood to wake up and begin recording to memory 48.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the security panel as taught by Edwards within the system of Carroll for the purpose of notifying of a criminal event in the neighborhood and enhancing tracking techniques and path of the criminal.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll and Edwards and further in view of Shapiro.
Claim 19. Carroll and Edwards teach the method of claim 16, and further discloses the use of a portable device but do not specifically disclose wherein the alert(s) generated by the security panel are communicated to a mobile application accessible by an owner of a secured premises or a guardian of a dependent
However, Shapiro teaches wherein the alert(s) generated by the security panel are communicated to a mobile application accessible by an owner of a secured premises or a guardian of a dependent
([0084] to alert a user, parent, or third party monitor...portable computing device [0108] The software application ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use as taught by Shapiro within the system of Carroll for the purpose of enhancing the system to allow a user to utilize modern equipment to track dependents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS C POINT whose telephone number is (571)270-7510. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/RUFUS C POINT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689