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
This is in response to application filed on 11/18/24, in which Claims 1-15 are presented for examination of which Claims 1 and 10 are in independent form.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent Nos. US 10810857 B1, US 11348435 B2 and US 11531136 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying "meat" is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying "pork").
Claims 1-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/950,653 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process for organizing human activity without adding significantly more. The independent Claims recite:
detecting unauthorized pool ingress (mental process, seeing someone uninvited enter personal pool); and
notifying neighbors proximal to a pool being monitored (mental process, telling neighbors an intruder is in pool)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no particular machine, particular transformation and no meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements.
MPEP 2106.05(e) states that the claim should add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106.05(h) states that limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The detecting and notifying steps recite an abstract idea.
The outputting step recites the additional element. The outputting limitation is mere insignificant extra solution activity that do no not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited detection system and alarm system are generic computer components to the abstract idea which is merely applying an abstract idea “with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea”.
The combination of the recited electric signal limitations would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it is merely using generic computer components to which the idea is applied to.
The last analysis regarding does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception is similar to the last analysis except that well-understood, routine and conventional devices are consider as part of the analysis. The recited detection system and alarm system are generic computer components that the abstract idea is applied to, and again the mere applying of an abstract idea “with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” does not amount to significantly more. The combination of the recited detecting and notifying and systems does not amount to significantly more as it is an application to generic systems to which the idea is applied to.
Independent Claim 10 is similarly rejected under 35 USC § 101 for the abstract idea of a mental process of detecting and notifying.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 11-15 recite further human activity and hence do not add any particular machine, particular transformation or meaningful limitations that would amount to significantly more and therefore they are rejected as well.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 10-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bennett et al. (Bennett; US 20190087548 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bennett discloses a communication alert system for unauthorized pool entry (Abstract, [0018] FIG. 10 safety monitoring system capable of sensing and alerting someone unauthorized who is in a pool swimming) comprising:
a detection system for detecting unauthorized pool ingress ([0018] sensing and alerting someone unauthorized who is in a pool swimming; [0085], [0101]); and
an alert system to notify neighbors proximal to a pool being monitored by the detection system ([0101] alerts in case of detecting unauthorized swimmers or children in proximity to the pool 1007, and issue warning in audio form, visual indications and flashing lights. It can detect and report on trespasses and issue alerts to neighbors).
Regarding Claim 2, Bennett discloses a pool safety system for receiving an alert or an alarm from the detection system and forwarding the alert or the alarm to the neighbors ([0101] detect and report on trespasses and issue alerts to neighbors).
2>Regarding Claim 3, Bennett discloses the pool safety system further forwards the alert or the alarm to a local emergency service ([0101] detect and report on trespasses and issue alerts to neighbors and police).
2>Regarding Claim 4, Bennett discloses the pool safety system forwards the alert or the alarm to a central monitoring service (Abstract central server provides safety monitoring, help for drowning swimmers, and emergency and accident supports; [0032] central security, support and services 125; [0154] external supporting server(s) and systems 1727 is provided as necessary, such as access to a local police server system or access to a local remote security monitoring systems)
[0036] communicates notification messages to alert other people in vicinity, and also optionally contacts the police or emergency services to seek help
2>Regarding Claim 5, Bennett discloses the pool safety system forwards the alert or the alarm to a home owner of the pool ([0018] safety monitoring system then communicates a notification, employing a mobile phone, to the owner/management of the premises).
Regarding Claim 10, Bennett discloses a method for providing pool safety against unauthorized pool entry (Abstract, [0018] FIG. 10 safety monitoring system capable of sensing and alerting someone unauthorized who is in a pool swimming), comprising:
monitoring a pool for unauthorized entry ([0018] sensing and alerting someone unauthorized who is in a pool swimming; [0085], [0101]); and
upon detecting unauthorized entry, alerting an entity of unauthorized pool entry ([0101] alerts in case of detecting unauthorized swimmers or children in proximity to the pool 1007, and issue warning in audio form, visual indications and flashing lights. It can detect and report on trespasses and issue alerts to neighbors).
Regarding Claim 11, Bennett discloses the entity is a neighbor or a group of neighbors proximal to a location of the pool ([0036] communicates notification messages to alert other people in vicinity, and also optionally contacts the police or emergency services to seek help; [0101] detect and report on trespasses and issue alerts to neighbors; [0135] warning light 1483 (such as LED lights) flashing features for alerting a swimmer 1433 or person 1431 in proximity to the pool 1407).
11>Regarding Claim 12, Bennett discloses alerting a local emergency service of unauthorized pool entry ([0101] detect and report on trespasses and issue alerts to neighbors and police).
11>Regarding Claim 14, Bennett discloses alerting a central monitoring service of unauthorized pool entry (Abstract central server provides safety monitoring, help for drowning swimmers, and emergency and accident supports; [0032] central security, support and services 125; [0154] external supporting server(s) and systems 1727 is provided as necessary, such as access to a local police server system or access to a local remote security monitoring systems)
14>Regarding Claim 15, Bennett discloses the local emergency service includes a local security service [0032] central security, support and services 125), a home security monitoring service ([0031] sensor processing support 121 consists of video, security, recognition, etc.), and combinations thereof ([0031]-[0032).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett in view of MATKO (Matko; US 20160012700 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Bennett doesn’t specify the detection system is activated when pool supervision is required.
In the same field of endeavor, Matko discloses an alarm system surrounding a pool to alert a parent of a potential drowning situation for a child. A pad borders the pool and is separated into sections. The pad encloses pressure sensors that detect when a child comes onto the pad. The different sections include different sensors. The sensors are coupled to a detector device that determines different actions to perform to alert someone of the danger situation. The actions includes an audible alarm, vibration, shock or sending an image, video or message indicating that a child is in danger.
Matko discloses the detection system is activated when pool supervision is required ([0008] Should the child continue to advance towards the pool, the pad will detect the continued pressure using the sensors…camera closest to the detected pressure may activate upon receipt of the signal. The images captured by the camera are sent to the phone or other device of the parent/guardian).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bennett with Matko activating a detection system in order to provide ample time for a guardian to receive and respond to a potentially dangerous situation with a young child near a pool.
6>Regarding Claim 7, Bennett discloses the pool supervision is required when there is no personal supervisory presence at or near the pool ([0033] the cameras provides greater functionality than known alarm systems. An audible alarm may be ignored or not heard if the parent is inside or just not able to hear it (being in shower, watching television, listening to music, etc.)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett and Matko in view of McSweeney (US 5631630 A).
6>Regarding Claim 8, Bennett doesn’t specify the detection system is manually activated.
In the same field of endeavor, McSweeney discloses a system for monitoring the exit doors of a home leading to the swimming pool and the swimming pool by combined passive and active motion detectors and an alarm.
McSweeney discloses a detection system is manually activated ( Col 3 Lines 38-47>> he homeowner could energize the security system 10 by simply manually connecting the plug of the transformer 34 to the electrical source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bennett with McSweeney using manual activation in order to provide a simplified, home-improvement-type, low voltage security system to prevent infants from entering the swimming pool, as suggested by McSweeney (Abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett and Matko in view of Webb (US 9928719 B1).
6>Regarding Claim 9, Bennett doesn’t specify the detection system is remotely activated.
In the same field of endeavor, Webb discloses a swimming pool alarm that senses a rise in the water level of a pool when a person inadvertently enters the pool. The alarm system includes pairs of battery-powered motion sensors that detect a change in the water level and communicate wirelessly to a receiver in a control panel, which then generates a visual and audible alarm. A key fob remote control is provided for activating and deactivating the control panel. The motion sensors are always on. The system is off when the control panel stops receiving.
Webb discloses a detection system is remotely activated (Abstract, Col 2 Lines 10-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bennett with Webb remotely activating the system in order to provide the convenience of activating the system even from a distance when a user is aware of swimmers entering the pool.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett in view of Matko.
12>Regarding Claim 13, Bennett discloses the local emergency service includes local police ([0101] detect and report on trespasses and issue alerts to neighbors and police), but doesn’t specify local ambulance service, local emergency medical service, and combinations.
Matko teaches a local emergency service includes local police, local ambulance service, local emergency medical service, and combinations thereof ([0030] images may be sent over a wireless or wired network to first responder 38, such as the police or fire rescue, that an emergency is occurring near pool 1. “First responder” may refer to anyone tasked with responding to emergency situations. As well as 911/fire/police, first responder may refer to lifeguards).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanning (US 20160093179 A1) discloses an improved alarm system for monitoring movement through a passageway defined by opposing sidewalls. The alarm system has a lower passage indicator disposed toward the lower ends of the sidewalls, an upper passage indicator disposed toward the upper ends of the sidewalls and a control mechanism configured to sound an alarm if the lower passage indicator indicates passage through the passageway and the upper passage indicator does not.
Snyder (US 20160155314 A1) discloses a system for reducing a risk of drowning in a pool includes a pool monitoring unit and a swim monitoring station. The pool monitoring unit is switchable between an activated state and a deactivated state. The pool monitoring unit is configured to detect entrance into the pool and/or movement in the pool and to output an alarm signal in response a detected entrance into the pool and/or movement in the pool when in the activated state.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S RUSHING whose telephone number is (571)270-5876. The examiner can normally be reached on 10-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK S RUSHING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687