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
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
The claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) are ineligible under 101 because each respective claim is directed to an Abstract idea, to include organizing human activity via geofenced alerting; mental process/evaluative selection; data receipt/transmission) and does not integrate them into a practical application. The additional elements do not provide “significantly more.”
For the same reasons, claims 2, 7, 9-14, and 16-21 are also rejected for depending on the above rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-15, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected over 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Meganathan et al., U.S. 2016/0217668 (hereinafter 668).
On claim 1, 668 cites except as underlined:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device associated with a premises,
figure 1, security system 10, geographic area 12, processor 34/36 [0020]
information indicating that a security condition has occurred in proximity to the premises;
[0013] limit switches around periphery placed on windows and doors
and
sending, by the computing device
[0029] Upon detecting a security breach via an activated sensor, a location processor within the control panel may determine a geographic location of the activated sensor via the lookup table. The location processor may also retrieve location information about each one of the portable devices. This may be accomplished by downloading location information from the cloud database or from the tracking file. In each case, a distance processor may determine a distance between each of the portable devices and the activated sensor.
(the claimed “computing device” is the cited location processor)
to a server, an indication of the security condition, wherein the indication is configured to cause the server to send an alert message to one or more wireless devices within a threshold distance of the premises based on location information associated with the premises.
Abstract: devices (30, 32) incorporated into a respective security sensor at known locations within a secure geographic area (12). A security system (10) of the secured area receives location information from a set of portable wireless devices (26, 28), detects security breach within the secured area, sends notification to each of the set of portable wireless devices and assigns a user of one of the set of portable wireless devices to investigate the breach based on proximity of the portable device to the breach.
[0029] Upon detecting a security breach via an activated sensor, a location processor within the control panel may determine a geographic location of the activated sensor via the lookup table. The location processor may also retrieve location information about each one of the portable devices. This may be accomplished by downloading location information from the cloud database or from the tracking file. In each case, a distance processor may determine a distance between each of the portable devices and the activated sensor.
(the claimed “server” is the cited “distance processor”)
On claim 4, 688 cites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more wireless devices are within one or more of:
a services area associated with the premises, a police services boundary, an emergency medical services boundary, or a neighborhood group.
[0005] In most cases, threat detectors are connected to a local control and monitoring panel. In the event of a threat detected via one of the sensors, the control panel may sound a local audible alarm. The control panel may also send a signal to a central monitoring station.
[0012] FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram of a security system 10 shown generally in accordance with an illustrated embodiment. Included within the system may be a number of threat sensors 14, 16 that protect a secured geographic area 12.
On claim 6, 688 cites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the security condition comprises an indication of one or more of:
output of a door sensor;
output of a window sensor;
[0013] limit switches around periphery placed on windows and doors
output of a smoke detector;
output of a glass-break sensor
On claim 7, 688 cites:
The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device comprises a mobile device,
and wherein the indication of the security condition comprises a location of the mobile device and the location information associated with the premises.
[[0017] In addition, one or more mobile or portable wireless devices (e.g., smartphones) 26, 28 may be provided for use within the area. The portable devices may be carried by guards as they patrol the secured area.
[0020] Included within the control panel, sensors, user interface, portable devices and Bluetooth low energy devices may be one or more processor apparatus (processors) 34, 36, each operating under control of one or more computer programs 38, 40 loaded from a non-transitory computer readable medium (memory) 42. As used herein, reference to a step performed by a computer program is also reference to the processor that executed that step.
On claim 8, 668 cites:
A computing device comprising: one or more processors;
figure 1, security system 10, geographic area 12, processor 34/36 [0020]
and
memory storing instructions
figure 1, memory 42 and program 38,40
that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to:
receive,
[0013] limit switches around periphery placed on windows and doors (and the breach of these thereof)
by the computing device associated with a premises,
[0029] Upon detecting a security breach via an activated sensor, a location processor within the control panel may determine a geographic location of the activated sensor via the lookup table. The location processor may also retrieve location information about each one of the portable devices. This may be accomplished by downloading location information from the cloud database or from the tracking file. In each case, a distance processor may determine a distance between each of the portable devices and the activated sensor.
(the claimed “computing device” is the cited location processor)
information indicating that a security condition has occurred in proximity to the premises;
[0013] limit switches around periphery placed on windows and doors (and the breach of these thereof)
and send, to a server, an indication of the security condition, wherein the indication is configured to cause the server to send an alert message to one or more wireless devices within a threshold distance of the premises based on location information associated with the premises.
Abstract: devices (30, 32) incorporated into a respective security sensor at known locations within a secure geographic area (12). A security system (10) of the secured area receives location information from a set of portable wireless devices (26, 28), detects security breach within the secured area, sends notification to each of the set of portable wireless devices and assigns a user of one of the set of portable wireless devices to investigate the breach based on proximity of the portable device to the breach.
[0029] Upon detecting a security breach via an activated sensor, a location processor within the control panel may determine a geographic location of the activated sensor via the lookup table. The location processor may also retrieve location information about each one of the portable devices. This may be accomplished by downloading location information from the cloud database or from the tracking file. In each case, a distance processor may determine a distance between each of the portable devices and the activated sensor.
[0031] Alternatively, at least some of the Bluetooth low energy devices may be mapped to a nearby or coincident sensor. In this situation any portable device receiving location information from the mapped Bluetooth low energy device would be assumed to be the closest portable device. Stated differently, if a breach occurs, the distance processor merely selects the portable device that has most recently detected the Bluetooth low energy device mapped to the activated sensor.
(the claimed “server” is the cited “distance processor”)
On claim 11, 668 cites:
The computing device of claim 8, wherein the one or more wireless devices are within one or more of: a services area associated with the premises, a police services boundary, an emergency medical services boundary, or a neighborhood group.
See the rejection of claim 4 which discloses the same subject matter as claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 13, 668 cites:
The computing device of claim 8, wherein the indication of the security condition comprises an indication of one or more of: output of a door sensor; output of a window sensor; output of a smoke detector; output of a glass-break sensor; an image or video associated with output of one or more sensors at the premises; triggering of an alarm at the premises; user input to the computing device at the premises; or a request for assistance.
See the rejection of claim 6 which discloses the same subject matter as claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 14, 668 cites except as underlined:
The computing device of claim 8, wherein the computing device comprises a mobile device, and wherein the indication of the security condition comprises a location of the mobile device and the location information associated with the premises.
[0017] In addition, one or more mobile or portable wireless devices (e.g., smartphones) 26, 28 may be provided for use within the area. The portable devices may be carried by guards as they patrol the secured area.
[0020] Included within the control panel, sensors, user interface, portable devices and Bluetooth low energy devices may be one or more processor apparatus (processors) 34, 36, each operating under control of one or more computer programs 38, 40 loaded from a non-transitory computer readable medium (memory) 42. As used herein, reference to a step performed by a computer program is also reference to the processor that executed that step.
On claim 15, 668 cites:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions
figure 1, memory 42 and program 38,40
that, when executed, cause:
receiving,
[0013] limit switches around periphery placed on windows and doors (and the breach of these thereof)
by a computing device associated with a premises,
[0029] Upon detecting a security breach via an activated sensor, a location processor within the control panel may determine a geographic location of the activated sensor via the lookup table. The location processor may also retrieve location information about each one of the portable devices. This may be accomplished by downloading location information from the cloud database or from the tracking file. In each case, a distance processor may determine a distance between each of the portable devices and the activated sensor.
(the claimed “computing device” is the cited location processor)
information indicating that a security condition has occurred in proximity to the premises;
[0013] limit switches around periphery placed on windows and doors (and the breach of these thereof)
and sending, by the computing device to a server, an indication of the security condition, wherein the indication is configured to cause the server to send an alert message to one or more wireless devices within a threshold distance of the premises based on location information associated with the premises.
Abstract: devices (30, 32) incorporated into a respective security sensor at known locations within a secure geographic area (12). A security system (10) of the secured area receives location information from a set of portable wireless devices (26, 28), detects security breach within the secured area, sends notification to each of the set of portable wireless devices and assigns a user of one of the set of portable wireless devices to investigate the breach based on proximity of the portable device to the breach.
[0029] Upon detecting a security breach via an activated sensor, a location processor within the control panel may determine a geographic location of the activated sensor via the lookup table. The location processor may also retrieve location information about each one of the portable devices. This may be accomplished by downloading location information from the cloud database or from the tracking file. In each case, a distance processor may determine a distance between each of the portable devices and the activated sensor.
[0031] Alternatively, at least some of the Bluetooth low energy devices may be mapped to a nearby or coincident sensor. In this situation any portable device receiving location information from the mapped Bluetooth low energy device would be assumed to be the closest portable device. Stated differently, if a breach occurs, the distance processor merely selects the portable device that has most recently detected the Bluetooth low energy device mapped to the activated sensor.
(the claimed “server” is the cited “distance processor”)
On claim 18, 668 cites:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the one or more wireless devices are within one or more of: a services area associated with the premises, a police services boundary, an emergency medical services boundary, or a neighborhood group.
[0005] In most cases, threat detectors are connected to a local control and monitoring panel. In the event of a threat detected via one of the sensors, the control panel may sound a local audible alarm. The control panel may also send a signal to a central monitoring station.
[0012] FIG. 1 is a simplified block diagram of a security system 10 shown generally in accordance with an illustrated embodiment. Included within the system may be a number of threat sensors 14, 16 that protect a secured geographic area 12.
On claim 20, 668 cites;
indication of the security condition comprises an indication of one or more of: output of a door sensor; output of a window sensor; output of a smoke detector; output of a glass-break sensor; an image or video associated with output of one or more sensors at the premises; triggering of an alarm at the premises; user input to the computing device at the premises; or a request for assistance.
[0013] limit switches around periphery placed on windows and doors (and the breach of these thereof)
On claim 21, 668 cites:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the computing device comprises a mobile device, and wherein the indication of the security condition comprises a location of the mobile device and the location information associated with the premises.
[0017] In addition, one or more mobile or portable wireless devices (e.g., smartphones) 26, 28 may be provided for use within the area. The portable devices may be carried by guards as they patrol the secured area.
[0020] Included within the control panel, sensors, user interface, portable devices and Bluetooth low energy devices may be one or more processor apparatus (processors) 34, 36, each operating under control of one or more computer programs 38, 40 loaded from a non-transitory computer readable medium (memory) 42. As used herein, reference to a step performed by a computer program is also reference to the processor that executed that step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Meganathan et al., U.S. 2016/0217668 (hereinafter 668) in view of Cohn et al., U.S. 2010/0281312.
On claim 2, 668 cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the security condition comprises one or more of an image or video associated with the security condition,
Abstract: devices (30, 32) incorporated into a respective security sensor at known locations within a secure geographic area (12). A security system (10) of the secured area receives location information from a set of portable wireless devices (26, 28), detects security breach within the secured area, sends notification to each of the set of portable wireless devices and assigns a user of one of the set of portable wireless devices to investigate the breach based on proximity of the portable device to the breach.
and wherein the alert message comprises the one or more of the image or video.
Regarding the excepted:
and wherein the alert message comprises the one or more of the image or video
688 cites:
[0015] Also included within the system is a control panel 18 that monitors the sensors and a user interface 20 that controls of the security system. The user interface may be located at a guard's station within the secured area or located at a remote site.
668 doesn’t disclose the image or video messages being sent to the cited wireless devices.
In the same art of personal devices, Cohn cites:
[0033] A portal server 170 can provide various user interface applications, including, for example, a subscriber portal, a mobile portal, and a management portal. A subscriber portal is an end-user accessible application that permits an end-user to access a corresponding SMA controller remotely via standard web-based applications. Using such a subscriber portal can provide access to the same SMA functions that an interface directly coupled to the SMA controller would provide, plus additional functions such as alert and contact management, historical data, widget and camera management, account management, and the like. A mobile portal can provide all or part of the access available to an end-user via the subscriber portal. A mobile portal can be limited, however, to capabilities of an accessing mobile device (e.g., touch screen or non-touch screen cellular phones).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 668’s security devices using the touch screen features of the cellular device disclosed in Cohn such that the claimed invention is realized. Cohn disclosed an known device equipped with a screen. One of ordinary skill would have substituted this device in place of 668’s security devices to allow the responders a more accurate detail of the security breach.
On claim 9, 668 and Cohn cites:
The computing device of claim 8, wherein the indication of the security condition comprises one or more of an image or video associated with the security condition, and wherein the alert message comprises the one or more of the image or video.
See the rejection of claim 2 which discloses the same subject matter as claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 16, 668 and Cohn cites:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the indication of the security condition comprises one or more of an image or video associated with the security condition, and wherein the alert message comprises the one or more of the image or video.
See the rejection of claim 2 which discloses the same subject matter as claim 16 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Meganathan et al., U.S. 2016/0217668 (hereinafter 668) in view of Tobias, U.S. 10,565,839.
On claim 3, 668 cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the security condition is further
configured to cause the server to send the alert message to:
the one or more wireless devices via a first protocol,
[0018] Distributed throughout the secured area may be one or more Bluetooth low energy (BLE) devices 30, 32. The Bluetooth low energy devices transmit a radio frequency signal containing location information. The Bluetooth low energy devices may be embodied as stand-alone devices as shown in FIG. 1 or one or more of them may be incorporated into one or more of the intrusion sensors.
[0044] Identifying a security guard's (mobile device's) current location is relatively straightforward. For example, assume that security guard number 1 patrols the premises with his/her mobile device. In addition, assume that security guard 1 approaches the main lobby and that the main lobby is assigned to BLE number 1 (BLE1). In this situation, the mobile device/app starts receiving the signal from BLE1.
and at least one other wireless device via a second protocol different from the first protocol.
Regarding the excepted claim limitations, 668, as disclosed above, includes transmitting alarm signals via Bluetooth. 668 doesn’t disclose transmitting the alarm signals where a first device receives the alarm signal via a first protocol and a second device receives the alarm signal via a second protocol.
In the same art of security alarm systems, Tobias, col. 2, lines 63-67 and col. 3, lines 1-11 discloses an alarm system using both Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and include an embodiment wherein at least a first device receives an alarm signal via Wi-Fi and a second device receives an alarm signal via Bluetooth such that the claimed invention is realized. 668 and Tobias discloses known embodiments where an alarm systems are known to communicate on two different protocols, BLE and Wi-fi and one of ordinary skill, apprised of these different signals, would have included these different ways of communicating alarm signals as a flexible means of transmitting alarm signals to different equipment.
On claim 10, 688 and Tobias cites:
The computing device of claim 8, wherein the indication of the security condition is 10. further configured to cause the server to send the alert message to: the one or more wireless devices via a first protocol, and at least one other wireless device via a second protocol different from the first protocol.
See the rejection of claim 3 which discloses the same subject matter as claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 17, 668 and Tobias cites:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the indication of the security condition is further configured to cause the server to send the alert message to:
the one or more wireless devices via a first protocol, and at least one other wireless device via a second protocol different from the first protocol.
See the rejection of claim 6 which discloses the same subject matter as claim 17 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Meganathan et al., U.S. 2016/0217668 (hereinafter 668) in view of Pham et al., U.S. 2020/0082694.
On claim 5, 668 cites except:
The method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the security condition comprises a heartbeat message.
As previously disclosed, 668 discloses sensors used to determine if a security condition is ongoing. 668 doesn’t disclose the claimed “heartbeat message.”
In the same art of networked sensor systems, Pham discloses:
[0026] As described above, in some examples, impact sensor 104 can transmit a periodic heartbeat signal to master node 102. As used herein, the term “heartbeat signal” refers to a periodic signal generated and transmitted by impact sensor 104 to master node 102 at regular intervals (e.g., every three seconds). Impact sensor 104 can transmit the heartbeat signal to master node 102 wirelessly (e.g., via a WBAN).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into 668 the “heartbeat” scheme disclosed in Pham such that the claimed invention is provided. Pham discloses a known embodiment for telling a system a sensor is still in operation. One of ordinary skill would have incorporated this feature to show a user the concerned sensor is still operational.
On claim 12, 668 and Pham cites:
The computing device of claim 8, wherein the indication of the security condition
comprises a heartbeat message.
See the rejection of claim 5 which discloses the same subject matter as claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
On claim 19, 668 and Pham cites:
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the indication of the security condition comprises a heartbeat message.
See the rejection of claim 5 which discloses the same subject matter as claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAL EUSTAQUIO whose telephone number is (571)270-7229. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Zimmerman, can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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 lnformation 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 PAlR only. For more information about the PAlR system, see http:/lpair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAlR 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 the automated information system, call 800-786-91 99 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAL J EUSTAQUIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2686 /BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686