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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
2. Applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged. The application is filed on 10/31/2024 but claims the benefit of U.S. provisional application number 63/115798 filed on 11/19/2020 and US Continuation of Application 18/243191 filed on 09/07/23 and US Continuation of Application 17/529332 filed on 11/18/21.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/25/26, 11/10/25. 5/14/25 and 12/09/24 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1:
Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes. The claim is method claim.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of acquire image data and determining representation of human from collected data. This limitation, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “acquire data and determining representation from acquire data,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “acquiring data and determining presence of human” language, the claim encompasses a user simply collecting and determining difference in different measurement steps in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic data processing operations does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites two additional elements: determining condition indicative entry into building performs the determination step. The determination step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of detect condition from gather data step), and amounts to mere data gathering or manipulations, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The determining causing data for representation from detected data is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the determination step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the determining and causing representations from detected data).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the data processing). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determination step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the data processing is anything other than a generic, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or determination of data over a data processing it is a well understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the determining step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 2:
Similar analysis applied as output indication to preview an event at the monitoring system.
Claim 3:
Similar analysis applied as output indication to output image.
Claim 4:
Similar analysis applied as output indication to output recorded video or image.
Claim 5:
Similar analysis applied as causing representation to prompt to disarm or determining threshold time period or determining disarmed status.
Claim 6:
Similar analysis applied as setting threshold time period for known visitors.
Claim 7:
Similar analysis applied as output indication of armed state of the system.
Claim 8:
Similar analysis applied as determining human and output indication for distinct images.
Similar analysis applied to Claims 9-20
Double Patenting
5. Claims 1, 9 and 17 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 8 and 14 of Application No. 19/074826. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(e) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1, 8 and 14 of the copending application (19/074826) as shown in the table below contains every element of claims 1, 9 and 17 of the instant application.
Claims of instant application 18/933433
Claims of copending application 19/074826
1. A method, comprising: determining, by a security system monitoring a building, that an image acquired by a camera monitoring a region outside the building includes a representation of a human; determining, by the security system, that a sensor monitoring the building has detected a condition indicative of entry into the building; and
causing, by the security system and based at least in part on the image having included the representation of the human and the sensor having detected the condition, a remote computing device to output an indication that a person has entered the building.
9. A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable mediums encoded with instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: determine that an image acquired by a camera monitoring a region outside a building includes a representation of a human; determine that a sensor monitoring the building has detected a condition indicative of entry into the building; and
cause, based at least in part on the image having included the representation of the human and the sensor having detected the condition, a remote computing device to output an indication that a person has entered the building.
17. One or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums encoded with instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to: determine that an image acquired by a camera monitoring a region outside a building includes a representation of a human; determine that a sensor monitoring the building has detected a condition indicative of entry into the building; and
cause, based at least in part on the image having included the representation of the human and the sensor having detected the condition, a remote computing device to output an indication that a person has entered the building.
1. A method, comprising: receiving, by a computing system, data acquired by a camera monitoring a property; determining, by the computing system and using the data, that a visitor on the property is a delivery person based on at least one external feature of the visitor; and
causing, by the computing system, a notification to be sent to an endpoint device based at least in part on the visitor having been determined to be a delivery person.
8. A system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable mediums encoded with instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: receive data acquired by a camera monitoring a property; determine, using the data, that a visitor on the property is a delivery person based on at least one external feature of the visitor; and
cause a notification to be sent to an endpoint device based at least in part on the visitor having been determined to be a delivery person.
14. One or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums encoded with instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a system, cause the system to: receive data acquired by a camera monitoring a property; determine, using the data, that a visitor on the property is a delivery person based on at least one external feature of the visitor; and
cause a notification to be sent to an endpoint device based at least in part on the visitor having been determined to be a delivery person.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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 of this title, 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Madden (US 20220207972 A1) (hereinafter Madden) in view of Fu (US 11523485 B1) (hereinafter Fu).
Regarding claim 1, Madden discloses a method, comprising: determining, by a security system monitoring a building, that an image acquired by a camera monitoring a region outside the building includes a representation of a human (FIGS. 1A and 1B illustrate examples of systems that verify a visitor at a monitored property, para 05, determining that a visitor is located at the vicinity of the entry point of the property, generate an appearance model of the visitor, receive, from the second camera, the second image data, based on determining that the second image data includes a representation of a person);
determining, by the security system, that a sensor monitoring the building has detected a condition indicative of entry into the building (para 11, determining, by the monitoring system, a confidence score that reflects a likelihood that visitor is located at area of property, and based on confidence score that reflects a likelihood that visitor is located at area of property, performing a monitoring system action, para 58, Based on receiving data from camera, monitoring control unit 112 determines that visitor located at the vicinity of entry point of the property 102, para 31, control unit 112 communicates a notification to user device 118. notification include an image of visitor, time of entry into monitored property 102, and indicate room visitor 106b entered ); and
causing, by the security system and based at least in part on the image having included the representation of the human and the sensor having detected the condition (para 63, monitoring control unit compares the second image data to the appearance model of visitor based on determining that the image data includes a representation of a person, para 26, The control unit 112 may communicate a notification to the user device 118 of the user 116 indicating that the visitor 116 left the property),
Madden specifically fails to disclose a remote computing device to output an indication that a person has entered the building.
In analogous art, Fu discloses a remote computing device to output an indication that a person has entered the building (col. 24,lines 40-53, In the decision state 506, if the face is recognized, the method 500 move to the decision state 518. In decision state 518, determine whether behavior of the visitor is recognized. behavior may be a delivery person dropping off a package, a burglar breaking and entering, a family member opening the door with a key, etc. If the behavior is recognized, the method 500 move to the state 524. In the state 524, smart security light 100 perform one or more security responses based on the behavior type detected (e.g., an alarm if a burglar is breaking in etc.) (i.e. a person has entered)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to use camera sensor may be configured to generate video data of an area of interest and security responses may be activated in response to an event detected by the analysis of the video data. [Fu, col. 2, lines 25-40].
Regarding claim 2, Madden fails to discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing the remote computing device to output the indication comprises causing the remote computing device to output a prompt to review an event at the building.
In analogous art, Fu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing the remote computing device to output the indication comprises causing the remote computing device to output a prompt to review an event at the building (col. 6,lines 5-9, Data sent to the user devices 220a-220n (i.e. remote device), an alert from smart cameras 100a-100n from the home 202a be sent to device 220a indicating that family member has arrived home, col. 9, lines 39-45, The wireless device 232 configured to transmit wireless signals to indicate a status of the package deposit 230).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to include security responses may be activated in response to an event detected by the analysis of the video data and second communication to a second contact may be initiated based on a response to the first communication [Fu, Abstract].
Regarding claim 3, Madden fails to discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing the remote computing device to output the indication comprises causing the remote computing device to output the image.
In analogous art, Fu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing the remote computing device to output the indication comprises causing the remote computing device to output the image (col. 6,lines 5-9, Data sent to user devices 220a-220n (i.e. remote device), an alert from smart cameras 100a-100n from home 202a be sent to device 220a indicating family member has arrived home, col. 27, lines 17-22, smart security light 100 contact receptionist 212 of the home security service and/or authorities 214 and review recorded video data of the event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to include security responses may be activated in response to an event detected by the analysis of the video data and second communication to a second contact may be initiated based on a response to the first communication [Fu, Fig. 7].
Regarding claim 4, Madden fails to discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing the remote computing device to output the indication comprises causing the remote computing device to output recorded video including the image.
In analogous art, Fu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing the remote computing device to output the indication comprises causing the remote computing device to output recorded video including the image (col. 6,lines 5-9, Data sent to the user devices 220a-220n (i.e. remote device), an alert from smart cameras 100a-100n from home 202a be sent to device 220a indicating that family member has arrived home, col. 19, lines 16-21, visitor is a guest entering unoccupied home, smart security lights 100a-100n configured to recorded video of the visitor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to analyze obtained visitor interaction information, based on the analysis, determine that interaction of the visitor matches a pre-defined interaction type, and, based on the determination, communicate a particular user notification associated with the pre-defined interaction type to a user of the smart environment [Fu, Abstract].
Regarding claim 5, Madden discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: causing, based at least in part on the image having included the representation of the human and the sensor having detected the condition, a device at the building to output a prompt to disarm the security system (para 63, monitoring control unit compares the image data to the appearance model of the visitor based on determining that image data includes a representation of a person, para 26, The control unit 112 communicate a notification to user device 118 of user 116 indicating that visitor 116 left property, para 08, perform a monitoring system action by providing notification to a user device to output command instructing person to vacate property based on determining that a person other than visitor is likely at area of the property);
determining a threshold time period for a user to disarm the security system, the threshold time period being based on a time at which the condition was detected by the sensor (para 68, When a visitor enters the monitored property 102 within a threshold time period of a scheduled time for a visitor, and visitor enters code associated with the scheduled visitor, the system confirms that the visitor is the scheduled visitor); and
determining that the security system has not been disarmed within the threshold time period; wherein the security system causes the remote computing device to output the indication further based at least in part on the security system not having been disarmed within the threshold time period (para 22, control unit 112 confirms the person that disarms the control panel is the visitor 106, the control unit updates the appearance model based on the new video and image data, para 68, when the monitoring system is disarmed, the monitoring control unit may decrease the confidence score threshold).
Regarding claim 6, Madden discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising: determining, by the security system, that the human is an unknown visitor; and setting the threshold time period to a first length of time based on the human being an unknown visitor, wherein the first length of time is shorter than a second length of time to which the security system sets the threshold time period for known visitors (para 68, When visitor enters monitored property 102 within a threshold time period of a scheduled time for a visitor, para 69, The monitoring control unit 112 update the stored appearance model for known visitor each time known visitor enters property 102).
Regarding claim 7, Madden discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: wherein the security system causes the remote computing device to output the indication further based at least in part on the security system being in an armed state (para 10, The monitoring control unit determine an armed status, based on determining system is armed, adjust threshold, compare adjusted threshold, perform action based on comparing adjusted threshold. para 70, monitoring unit 112 prompt a speaker in the vicinity, to output voice commands instructing visitor to vacate room).
Regarding claim 8, Madden fails to discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the image includes the representation of the human, determining that the sensor has detected the condition, and causing the remote computing device to output the indication are performed by a base station of the security system, the base station being distinct from the camera and the sensor.
In analogous art, Fu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the image includes the representation of the human, determining that the sensor has detected the condition, and causing the remote computing device to output the indication are performed by a base station of the security system, the base station being distinct from the camera and the sensor (Fig. 1, smart security IP camera and base 104, col. 6,lines 5-9, Data sent to the user devices 220a-220n (i.e. remote device), an alert from smart cameras 100a-100n from home 202a be sent to device 220a indicating that family member has arrived home, col. 19, lines 16-21, visitor is a guest entering home, smart security lights 100a configured to recorded video of visitor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to include security responses may be activated in response to an event detected by the analysis of the video data and second communication to a second contact may be initiated based on a response to the first communication [Fu, Abstract].
Regarding claim 9, Madden discloses a system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable mediums encoded with instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (para 12, computer- readable storage medium encoded with executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform operations), cause the system to:
determine that an image acquired by a camera monitoring a region outside a building includes a representation of a human (FIGS. 1A and 1B illustrate examples of systems that verify a visitor at a monitored property, para 05, determining that a visitor is located at the vicinity of the entry point of the property, generate an appearance model of the visitor, receive, from the second camera, the second image data, based on determining that the second image data includes a representation of a person);
determine that a sensor monitoring the building has detected a condition indicative of entry into the building (para 11, determining, by the monitoring system, a confidence score that reflects a likelihood that visitor is located at area of property, and based on confidence score that reflects a likelihood that visitor is located at area of property, performing a monitoring system action, para 58, Based on receiving the data from the first camera, the monitoring control unit 112 determines that a visitor is located at the vicinity of the entry point of the property 102); and
cause, based at least in part on the image having included the representation of the human and the sensor having detected the condition (para 63, monitoring control unit compares the second image data to the appearance model of the visitor based on determining that the second image data includes a representation of a person, para 26, The control unit 112 may communicate a notification to the user device 118 of the user 116 indicating that the visitor 116 left the property).
Madden specifically fails to disclose a remote computing device to output an indication that a person has entered the building.
In analogous art, Fu discloses a remote computing device to output an indication that a person has entered the building (col. 24,lines 40-53, In the decision state 506, if the face is recognized, the method 500 move to the decision state 518. In decision state 518, determine whether behavior of the visitor is recognized. behavior may be a delivery person dropping off a package, a burglar breaking and entering, a family member opening the door with a key, etc. If the behavior is recognized, the method 500 move to the state 524. In the state 524, smart security light 100 perform one or more security responses based on the behavior type detected (e.g., an alarm if a burglar is breaking in, a message telling a loiterer to move along, etc.) (i.e. a person has entered), col. 9, lines 39-45, The wireless device 232 configured to transmit wireless signals to indicate a status of the package deposit 230).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to use camera sensor may be configured to generate video data of an area of interest and security responses may be activated in response to an event detected by the analysis of the video data. [Fu, col. 2, lines 25-40].
Regarding claim 10, Madden discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the one or more computer-readable mediums are further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (para 71, computer processor, and a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine- readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor).
Madden fails to discloses cause the system to: cause the remote computing device to output the indication at least in part by causing the remote computing device to output a prompt to review an event at the building.
In analogous art, Fu discloses cause the system to: cause the remote computing device to output the indication at least in part by causing the remote computing device to output a prompt to review an event at the building (col. 6,lines 5-9, Data sent to the user devices 220a-220n (i.e. remote device), an alert from smart cameras 100a-100n from the home 202a be sent to device 220a indicating that family member has arrived home, col. 9, lines 39-45, The wireless device 232 configured to transmit wireless signals to indicate a status of the package deposit 230).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to analyze obtained visitor interaction information, based on the analysis, determine that interaction of the visitor matches a pre-defined interaction type, and, based on the determination, communicate a particular user notification associated with the pre-defined interaction type to a user of the smart environment [Fu, Abstract].
Regarding claim 11, Madden discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the one or more computer-readable mediums are further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (para 71, computer processor, and a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine- readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor).
Madden fails to discloses cause the system to: cause the remote computing device to output the indication at least in part by causing the remote computing device to output the image.
In analogous art, Fu discloses cause the system to: cause the remote computing device to output the indication at least in part by causing the remote computing device to output the image (col. 6,lines 5-9, Data sent to user devices 220a-220n (i.e. remote device), an alert from smart cameras 100a-100n from home 202a be sent to device 220a indicating family member has arrived home, col. 27, lines 17-22, smart security light 100 contact receptionist 212 of the home security service and/or authorities 214 and review recorded video data of the event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to include security responses may be activated in response to an event detected by the analysis of the video data and second communication to a second contact may be initiated based on a response to the first communication [Fu, Abstract].
Regarding claim 12, the system of claim 9, wherein the one or more computer-readable mediums are further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (para 71, computer processor, and a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine- readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor).
Madden fails to discloses cause the system to: cause the remote computing device to output the indication at least in part by causing the remote computing device to output recorded video including the image.
In analogous art, Fu discloses cause the system to: cause the remote computing device to output the indication at least in part by causing the remote computing device to output recorded video including the image (col. 6,lines 5-9, Data sent to the user devices 220a-220n (i.e. remote device), an alert from smart cameras 100a-100n from home 202a be sent to device 220a indicating that family member has arrived home, col. 19, lines 16-21, visitor is a guest entering unoccupied home, smart security lights 100a-100n configured to recorded video of the visitor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to analyze obtained visitor interaction information, based on the analysis, determine that interaction of the visitor matches a pre-defined interaction type, and, based on the determination, communicate a particular user notification associated with the pre-defined interaction type to a user of smart environment [Fu, col. 7, lines 1-15].
Regarding claim 13, Madden discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the one or more computer-readable mediums are further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (para 71, computer processor, and a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine- readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor), further cause the system to: cause, based at least in part on the image having included the representation of the human and the sensor having detected the condition, a device at the building to output a prompt to disarm the system (para 63, monitoring control unit compares the second image data to the appearance model of the visitor based on determining that the second image data includes a representation of a person, para 26, The control unit 112 may communicate a notification to the user device 118 of the user 116 indicating that visitor 116 left the property, para 08, perform monitoring system action by providing a notification to a user device to output voice command instructing the person to vacate the property based on determining that a person other than visitor is likely at the area of the property);
determine a threshold time period for a user to disarm the system, the threshold time period being based on a time at which the condition was detected by the sensor; determine that the system has not been disarmed within the threshold time period (para 22, control unit 112 confirms the person that disarms the control panel is the visitor 106, the control unit updates the appearance model based on video and image data, para 68, when monitoring system is disarmed, monitoring control unit may decrease the confidence score threshold); and
cause the remote computing device to output the indication further based at least in part on the system not having been disarmed within the threshold time period (para 68, When a visitor enters the monitored property 102 within a threshold time period of a scheduled time for a visitor, and the visitor enters the disarm code associated with the scheduled visitor, the system confirms that the visitor is the scheduled visitor).
Regarding claim 14, Madden discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the one or more computer-readable mediums are further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (para 71, computer processor, and a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine- readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor), further cause the system to: determine that the human is an unknown visitor; and set the threshold time period to a first length of time based on human being an unknown visitor, wherein the first length of time is shorter than a second length of time to which system sets threshold time period for known visitors (para 68, When visitor enters monitored property 102 within threshold time period of a scheduled time for a visitor, para 69, monitoring control unit 112 update appearance model for each known visitor each time known visitor enters property 102).
Regarding claim 15, Madden discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the one or more computer-readable mediums are further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (para 71, computer processor, and a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine- readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor), further cause the system to: cause the remote computing device to output the indication further based at least in part on the system being in an armed state (para 10, The monitoring control unit determine an armed status, based on determining system is armed, adjust threshold, compare adjusted threshold, perform action based on comparing adjusted threshold. para 70, The monitoring control unit 112 prompt a speaker in the vicinity, to output voice commands instructing visitor to vacate restricted room).
Regarding claim 16, Madden fails to discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the one or more computer-readable mediums are further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: use a base station of the system, which is distinct from the camera and the sensor, to determine that the image includes the representation of the human, determine that the sensor has detected the condition, and cause the remote computing device to output the indication.
In analogous art, Fu discloses cause the system to: use a base station of the system, which is distinct from the camera and the sensor, to determine that the image includes the representation of the human, determine that the sensor has detected the condition, and cause the remote computing device to output the indication (Fig. 1, smart security IP camera and base 104, col. 6,lines 5-9, Data sent to the user devices 220a-220n (i.e. remote device), an alert from smart cameras 100a-100n from home 202a be sent to device 220a indicating that family member has arrived home, col. 19, lines 16-21, visitor is a guest entering unoccupied home, smart security lights 100a-100n configured to recorded video of the visitor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to include security responses may be activated in response to an event detected by the analysis of the video data and second communication to a second contact may be initiated based on a response to the first communication [Fu, Abstract].
Regarding claim 17, Madden discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums encoded with instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a system (para 71, computer processor, and a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine- readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor), cause the system to:
determine that an image acquired by a camera monitoring a region outside a building includes a representation of a human (FIGS. 1A and 1B illustrate examples of systems that verify a visitor at a monitored property, para 05, determining that a visitor is located at the vicinity of the entry point of the property, generate an appearance model of the visitor, receive, from the second camera, the second image data, based on determining that the second image data includes a representation of a person);
determine that a sensor monitoring the building has detected a condition indicative of entry into the building (para 11, determining, by the monitoring system, a confidence score that reflects a likelihood that visitor is located at area of property, and based on confidence score that reflects a likelihood that visitor is located at area of property, performing a monitoring system action, para 58, Based on receiving the data from the first camera, the monitoring control unit 112 determines that a visitor is located at the vicinity of the entry point of the property 102); and
cause, based at least in part on the image having included the representation of the human and the sensor having detected the condition (para 63, monitoring control unit compares the second image data to the appearance model of the visitor based on determining that the second image data includes a representation of a person, para 26, The control unit 112 may communicate a notification to the user device 118 of the user 116 indicating that the visitor 116 left the property).
Madden specifically fails to disclose a remote computing device to output an indication that a person has entered the building.
In analogous art, Fu discloses a remote computing device to output an indication that a person has entered the building (col. 24,lines 40-53, In the decision state 506, if the face is recognized, the method 500 move to the decision state 518. In decision state 518, determine whether behavior of the visitor is recognized. behavior may be a delivery person dropping off a package, a burglar breaking and entering, a family member opening the door with a key, etc. If the behavior is recognized, the method 500 move to the state 524. In the state 524, smart security light 100 perform one or more security responses based on the behavior type detected (e.g., an alarm if a burglar is breaking in) (i.e. a person has entered)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to use camera sensor may be configured to generate video data of an area of interest and security responses may be activated in response to an event detected by the analysis of the video data. [Fu, col. 2, lines 25-40].
Regarding claim 18, Madden fails to discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums of claim 17, further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: cause the remote computing device to output the indication at least in part by causing the remote computing device to output a prompt to review an event at the building.
In analogous art, Fu discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums of claim 17, further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: cause the remote computing device to output the indication at least in part by causing the remote computing device to output a prompt to review an event at the building (col. 6,lines 5-9, Data sent to user devices 220a-220n (i.e. remote device), an alert from smart cameras 100a-100n from home 202a be sent to device 220a indicating that family member has arrived home, col. 9, lines 39-45, wireless device 232 configured to transmit wireless signals to indicate a status of the package deposit 230).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to include security responses may be activated in response to an event detected by the analysis of the video data and second communication to a second contact be initiated based on a response to the first communication [Fu, col. 7, lines 1-15].
Regarding claim 19, Madden fails to discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums of claim 17, further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: cause the remote computing device to output the indication at least in part by causing the remote computing device to output the image.
In analogous art, Fu discloses cause the remote computing device to output the indication at least in part by causing the remote computing device to output the image (col. 6,lines 5-9, Data sent to user devices 220a-220n (i.e. remote device), an alert from smart cameras 100a-100n from home 202a be sent to device 220a indicating family member has arrived home, col. 27, lines 17-22, smart security light 100 contact receptionist 212 of the home security service and/or authorities 214 and review recorded video data of the event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to include security responses may be activated in response to an event detected by the analysis of the video data and second communication to a second contact may be initiated based on a response to the first communication [Fu, Abstract].
Regarding claim 20, Madden fails to discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums of claim 17, further encoded with additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: cause the remote computing device to output the indication at least in part by causing the remote computing device to output recorded video including the image.
In analogous art, Fu discloses cause the remote computing device to output the indication at least in part by causing the remote computing device to output recorded video including the image (col. 6,lines 5-9, Data sent to user devices 220a-220n (i.e. remote device), alert from smart cameras 100afrom home 202a be sent to device 220a indicating that family member has arrived home, col. 19, lines 16-21, visitor entering unoccupied home, smart security to recorded video of visitor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of monitoring systems to provide increased security by comparing to the generated appearance model, whether the visitor within the property is the same person that gained access to the property disclosed by Madden to detect visitor interaction information indicative of a particular interaction of the visitor with the smart environment using a first smart device as taught by Fu to analyze obtained visitor interaction information, based on the analysis, determine that interaction of the visitor matches a pre-defined interaction type, and, based on the determination, communicate a particular user notification associated with the pre-defined interaction type to a user of smart environment [Fu, col. 8, lines 47-58].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRZA ALAM whose telephone number is (469) 295-9286. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIRZA F ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689