DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Subramanian et al. (US 2018/0315301).
Regarding claim 21: Subramanian discloses a building security system with user presentation for false alarm reduction comprising: receiving, by a device (security system, 302a-302d), information related to a security event at a location (intrusion detection, access control, video surveillance, fire detection), the information corresponding to an alarm signal (intrusion detection, access control, video surveillance, fire detection) and additional information (sensors deployed at various locations in and around the building and transmit data back to a central system for analysis) related to the location at a time associated with the alarm signal; analyzing, by the device (310), the information, the analysis comprising a combinational analysis of information related to the alarm signal and the additional information; determining, by the device, based on the analysis of the information, whether a combination of the alarm signal and the additional information corresponds to a valid alarm; and transmitting, based on the determination, a status signal to a dispatcher [0165, 0190].
Regarding claim 22: Subramanian discloses causing, via the transmission to the dispatcher, the dispatcher to communicate an indication to a responding entity, the indication based on the determination related to the combination of the alarm signal and the additional information [0165].
Regarding claim 23: Subramanian discloses the indication being an alert when the determination indicates a valid alarm, the alert causing notification of the alarm signal and demographic data (events occurred in a predefined area) associated with the alarm signal [0165, 0190].
Regarding claim 24: Subramanian discloses when the false alarm is determined, it generate a recommendation and provide a solution to reduce a false alarm in the future [0171-0176]; thus, the signal is being disregard as to notifying to the authority.
Regarding claim 25: Subramanian discloses receiving the alarm signal related to the security event intrusion detection, access control, video surveillance, fire detection); and receiving the additional information related to the security event (sensors deployed at various locations in and around the building and transmit data back to a central system for analysis, or historical security data) [0165, 0171, 0190].
Regarding claim 26: Subramanian discloses the additional information being provided from a source external to a security system for the location (historical data, 312, from the cloud server; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 27: Subramanian discloses the additional information corresponding to data selected from a group consisting of: weather data from the time associated with the alarm signal [0127], movement data associated with a geographic area during the time associated with the alarm signal [0165, 0198], a location of users of a security system during the time associated with the alarm signal [0127, 0171], and an incident report relevant to the geographic area [0190].
Regarding claim 28: Subramanian discloses training a model based on a training set, the training set corresponding to a set of previous alarm signals and set of additional information; and executing the trained model to perform the analysis of the information [0128, 0258].
Regarding claim 29: Subramanian discloses the device being part of a security system for the location (different buildings, fire detection, intrusion detection (door, entrance location) [0159, 0165].
Regarding claim 30: Subramanian discloses receiving the alarm signal from a security system associated with the location [0165].
Regarding claims 31 and 39: See claim 21 above.
Regarding claims 32 and 40: See claims 22-24 above.
Regarding claim 33: See claim 25 above.
Regarding claim 34: See claim 26 above.
Regarding claim 35: See claim 27 above.
Regarding claim 36: See claim 28 above.
Regarding claim 37: See claim 29 above.
Regarding claim 38: See claim 30 above.
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. 10,762,773. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claimed the same subject matter. The same subject matter being the receiving of an alarm event and an additional information associated with the alarm event and analyze both information to determine whether the alarm signal is a false or valid alarm, and transmit the alarm signal to a dispatcher or relevant authority.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Kapuschat (US 10,380,521) discloses a predicting service for intrusion and alarm systems based on signal activity patterns.
-Stewart et al. (US 10,607,478) discloses a building security system with false alarm reduction using hierarchical relationships.
-Bodbyl et al. (US 2021/0012115) discloses a premises security system with dynamic risk evaluation.
-Zakaria et al. (US 10,930,122) discloses methods for detecting faults in a siren-based alert system include receiving, by a siren device from a central siren controller, an activation command.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN NGOC PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2967. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (7 AM - 3:30 PM).
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/TOAN N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 4/17/26