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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 2-3, the phrase “a same incident a property monitored by a security system” lacks proper antecedent wording. It is suggested that the limitation be amended to read “a same incident at a property monitored by a security system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 5-6, the phrase “a same incident a property monitored by a security system” lacks proper antecedent wording. It is suggested that the limitation be amended to read “a same incident at a property monitored by a security system”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11-14, 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britton et al. Pub. No.: US 20160300464 (Hereinafter “Britton”) in view of CAO et al. Pub. No.: US 20170193810 (Hereinafter “CAO”).
Regarding Claim 1, Britton discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a computing system, that first and second events relate to a same incident a property monitored by a security system (see fig.4, step 406, fig.5, step 406, paragraphs [0057, 0064-0065]), the first and second events corresponding to first and second records (see fig.4, step 406, fig.5, step 406, paragraphs [0057, 0064-0065]), respectively, and the first and second records including first and second status indicators, respectively (see fig.4, step 412-414, fig.5, step 512, paragraphs [0060-0061, 0066-0067]: false or verified);
determining, by the computing system, that the first status indicator has changed state (see paragraphs [0044, 0061, 0067]: a determination by a reviewer at the central station of whether the detected alarm event is a false alarm event or a verified alarm event may be facilitated.);
Britton fails to disclose:
in response to the change of state of the first status indicator and based at least in part on the first event and the second event relating to the same incident, causing, by the computing system, the second status indicator to also change state; and
based at least in part on the change of state of the second status indicator, causing, by the computing system, at least one computing device to perform one or more operations.
In analogous art, CAO teaches:
in response to the change of state of the first status indicator and based at least in part on the first event and the second event relating to the same incident, causing, by the computing system, the second status indicator to also change state (see paragraphs [0013, 0036]); and
based at least in part on the change of state of the second status indicator, causing, by the computing system, at least one computing device to perform one or more operations (see paragraphs [0013, 0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Britton with the teaching as taught by CAO in order to automatically filter false positive events based on the one or more factors such that the user of the system does not receive notifications for events that are not of interest to the user.
Regarding Claim 2, Britton in view of CAO discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Britton further discloses wherein: the first record further includes a first identifier of a property at which the first event was detected (see paragraphs [0023-0024]); the second record further includes a second identifier of a property at which the second event was detected (see paragraphs [0023-0024]); on the other hand, CAO teaches determining that the first event and the second event relate to the same incident includes determining that the first identifier matches the second identifier (see paragraphs [0016, 0017]).
Regarding Claim 3, Britton in view of CAO discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 2. Britton further discloses wherein: the first record further includes a first timestamp indicating a first time at which the first event was detected (see paragraph [0044]); the second record further includes a second timestamp indicating a second time at which the second event was detected (see paragraph [0044]); and further includes determining, using the first and second timestamps, that the first time is within a threshold time of the second time (see paragraphs [0044]), on the other hand, CAO teaches determining that the first event and the second event relate to the same incident (see paragraphs [0013, 0036]).
Regarding Claim 4, Britton in view of CAO discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Britton further discloses receiving, by the computing system and from a first computing device operated by a first monitoring agent, a message indicating that the first monitoring agent has provided an input representing a determined status of the first event; and in response to the message, causing, by the computing system, the first status indicator to changes state (see paragraph [0068]).
Regarding Claim 6, Britton in view of CAO discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 4. Britton further discloses wherein causing the at least one computing device to perform the one or more operations includes causing a second computing device operated by a second monitoring agent to display information from a third record of a third event detected by the security system rather than the second record (see paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 8, Britton in view of CAO discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Britton further discloses wherein causing the at least one computing device to perform the one or more operations includes causing a computing device operated by a monitoring agent to display information from a third record of a third event detected by the security system rather than the second record (see paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 9, Britton in view of CAO discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Britton further discloses wherein the first record further includes one or more first images acquired by one or more cameras at the property and the second record further includes one or more second images acquired by the one or more cameras (see fig.3 and paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 11, Britton in view of CAO discloses a system, comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one computer-readable medium encoded with instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (see fig.1, Britton ( and see fig.3, CAO ()), cause the system to perform the steps discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 10, 15, 17 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424