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 .
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12136325 in view of Acera US 20170084143.
Instant application
12136325
A method comprising: detecting an event by a control panel of a security or automation system of a premises, wherein the event is associated with detection of a short range communication device in range of the control panel;
A method comprising: detecting a security event by a processor of a control panel of a security or automation system of a premises, wherein the security event is associated with detection of a short range communication device in range of the control panel;
disarming the control panel responsive to determining that the short range communication device that is in range of the control panel is a known device;
capturing one or more first still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel of the security or automation system of the premises, responsive to disarming the control panel responsive to determining that the short range communication device that is in range of the control panel is the known device.
capturing one or more first still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel of the security or automation system of the premises, for use in motion detection by the control panel in response to detection of the short range communication device in range of the control panel;
determining, by the control panel, whether a motion is detected in the one or more first still images or videos captured by the at least one camera in the control panel in response to detection of the short range communication device in range of the control panel; and
starting to record one or more second still images or videos by the at least one camera in the control panel in response to detecting the motion in the one or more first still images or videos that were captured by the at least one camera in the control panel in response to detection of the short range communication device in range of the control panel.
The 325 patent do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
disarming the control panel responsive to determining that the short range communication device that is in range of the control panel is a known device;
capturing one or more first still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel of the security or automation system of the premises, responsive to disarming the control panel
However, in the same field of endeavor Acera discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
disarming the control panel responsive to determining that the short range communication device that is in range of the control panel is a known device (i.e. Bluetooth circuit 64 may be used by the control panel 20 to automatically disarm the security system 12 when an authorized Bluetooth-enabled device is within range of the control panel 20.) [47];
capturing one or more first still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel of the security or automation system of the premises, responsive to disarming the control panel (i.e. camera which may be incorporated into a control panel can capture images. The system can be disarmed in response to determining a known device is near a control panel) [50-52,109]
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of the 325 patent with Acera to disarm the control panel responsive to determining that the short range communication device that is in range of the control panel is a known device;
capturing one or more first still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel of the security or automation system of the premises, responsive to disarming the control panel
It would be advantageous because disarming the control panel using the short-range communication would enable a smooth disabling of the alarm system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of 325 patent with Acera to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Dependent claims have corresponding claims in the 325 patent and are rejected similarly.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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 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) 21,22,24,25,28-34,36,37,39, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acera US 20170084143 in view of Madden US 20220207972.
Regarding claim 21, Acera disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
A method comprising:
detecting an event by a control panel of a security or automation system of a premises, wherein the event is associated with detection of a short range communication device in range of the control panel (i.e. Bluetooth circuit 64 may be used by the control panel 20 to automatically disarm the security system 12 when an authorized Bluetooth-enabled device is within range of the control panel 20. Control panel has memory 44 and a processor 40) [16,47; fig. 2];
disarming the control panel responsive to determining that the short range communication device that is in range of the control panel is a known device (i.e. Bluetooth circuit 64 may be used by the control panel 20 to automatically disarm the security system 12 when an authorized Bluetooth-enabled device is within range of the control panel 20.) [47]; and
capturing one or more first still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel of the security or automation system of the premises and disarming the control panel responsive to determining that the short range communication device that is in range of the control panel is the known device (i.e. camera which may be incorporated into a control panel can capture images. The system can be disarmed in response to determining a known device is near a control panel) [50-52,109].
Acera do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
capturing one or more first still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel of the security or automation system of the premises, responsive to disarming the control panel responsive to determining that the short range communication device that is in range of the control panel is the known device
However, in the same field of endeavor Madden discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
capturing one or more first still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel of the security or automation system of the premises, responsive to disarming the control panel responsive to determining that the short range communication device that is in range of the control panel is the known device (i.e. The control panel of the in-home security system may include a camera that captures one or more images and video data of the visitor 106 as the visitor enters the disarm code.) [22,61].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Acera with Madden to capture one or more first still images or videos by at least one camera in the control panel of the security or automation system of the premises, responsive to disarming the control panel responsive to determining that the short range communication device that is in range of the control panel is the known device.
It would be advantageous because triggering the camera only when the alarm is being disarmed would save energy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Acera with Madden to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Acera meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 21, further comprising determining, by the control panel, whether a motion is detected in the one or more first still images or videos captured by the at least one camera in the control panel (i.e. wifi camera can be used to detect motion. This would involve using images.) [46].
Regarding claim 24, Madden meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 21, wherein the at least one camera comprises a forward-facing camera in the control panel (i.e. The control panel of the in-home security system may include a camera that captures one or more images and video data of the visitor 106 as the visitor enters the disarm code.) [22].
Regarding claim 25, Acera meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 21, further comprising, in response to detecting the event, initiating an alarm or sending a notification to a cloud system (i.e. alarm signal transmitted in response to detecting unauthorized opening) [19].
Regarding claim 28, Acera meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 21, further comprising performing facial recognition on the one or more first still images or videos [51].
Regarding claim 29, Acera meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 28, further comprising determining, based on the facial recognition, whether the control panel is disarmed by an authorized individual [51].
Regarding claim 30, Acera meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 21, wherein the short range communication device comprises a Bluetooth device (i.e. Bluetooth circuit 64 may be used by the control panel 20 to automatically disarm the security system 12 when an authorized Bluetooth-enabled device is within range of the control panel 20.) [16,47].
Regarding claim 31, Acera meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 30, wherein detecting the event comprises using a Bluetooth radio in the control panel to detect the Bluetooth device (i.e. Bluetooth circuit 64 may be used by the control panel 20 to automatically disarm the security system 12 when an authorized Bluetooth-enabled device is within range of the control panel 20. This would include some radio of Bluetooth signal) [16,47].
Regarding claim 32, Acera meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 21, wherein the control panel is installed at the premises and is configured to control one or more security or automation devices of the security or automation system of the premises (i.e. control panel installed at a premises) [25; fig. 2].
Claim 33 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 21.
Claim 34 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 22.
Claim 36 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 24.
Claim 37 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 25.
Claim 39 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 30 and 31.
Claim 40 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 21.
Claim(s) 23,26,27,35, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acera and Madden in view of Siminoff US 20180261060.
Regarding claim 23, Acera and Madden do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
starting to record one or more second still images or videos by the at least one camera in the control panel in response to detecting the motion in the one or more first still images or videos that were captured by the at least one camera in the control panel
However, in the same field of endeavor Siminoff discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
starting to record one or more second still images or videos by the at least one camera in the control panel in response to detecting the motion in the one or more first still images or videos that were captured by the at least one camera in the control panel (i.e. motion capturing in an image used to trigger a second set of images) [351,354-356,359-360; fig. 43].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Acera and Madden with Siminoff to have starting to record one or more second still images or videos by the at least one camera in the control panel in response to detecting the motion in the one or more first still images or videos that were captured by the at least one camera in the control panel.
It would be advantageous because this would save space in the device by not needing a separate motion detector.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Acera and Madden with Siminoff to obtain the invention as specified in claim 23.
Regarding claim 26, Siminoff meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 21, further comprising sending the one or more first still images or videos by the control panel to a cloud system [128].
Regarding claim 27, Siminoff meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 26, wherein the cloud system is configured to send the one or more first still images or videos to a device of a user for viewing on an app running on the device of the user [128,283].
Claim 35 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 23.
Claim 38 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 27.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 - 4:30 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426