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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 2024/0296725 (18/595,230, reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both have similar limitations, as claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as
being anticiapted by Amir et al. ((US 2023/0245541).
As per claim 1, Amir et al. disclose an apparatus (100, figures 1-2) comprising:
an image capture device (camera, 208, paragraphs 0060); and one or more processors (CPU, 202, paragraph 0059) coupled with memory (210) and configured to:
detect, using the image capture device, an entity (target object, 104) within an
area (the CPU 202 is configured to control the camera 208 to capture an image
(represented by image data) of the environment. The camera 208 is preferably a visible
light camera in that it senses visible light., paragraphs 0071 and 0073);
determine that the entity corresponds to one or more criteria (the CPU 202 determines that an intruder is present in an area of interest, and the process 400 proceeds to step S408, paragraph 0104);
identify a first sound corresponding to the one or more criteria and a state of the
area; play, by a speaker device, the first sound to deter the entity from perpetrating an
event within the area ("Additionally or alternatively, at step S408 the CPU 202 controls
the speaker 218 to emit audio as an audible deterrent to the intruder. The audio emitted
by the speaker 218 may be a non-speech sound e.g. a warning siren. Additionally or
alternatively the audio emitted by the speaker 218 may be an audible speech message
e.g. "this is private property, please leave the area immediately!", paragraph 0112) based on a mapping between the one or more criteria and the first sound (paragraphs 0101-0105);
identify a second sound corresponding to the one or more criteria, the state of
the area, and the first sound; and play, by the speaker device, the second sound to
deter the entity from perpetrating the event. ("Taking the example where at step S408
the CPU 202 controls the speaker 218 to emit an audible speech message, at step
S412 the CPU 202 may control the speaker to increase the volume of the emitted
audible speech message and/or to output a different audible speech message.
Alternatively or additionally, at step S412, the CPU 202 may control the speaker 218 to
emit a non-speech sound e.g. a warning siren. Alternatively or additionally, at step S412
the CPU 202 may control the lighting device 216 to emit light as a visual deterrent to the
intruder in a manner as described above with respect to the deterrent output at step
S408.", figure 4 and paragraph 0137).
As per claim 2, Amir et al. disclose the one or more processors are configured to: detect the entity within the area by detecting at least one of physical characteristics of the entity (the object has moved towards a second predetermined area) or behavioral characteristics of the entity (the deterrent output at step S408 may have been based on the object 104 being located in a first predetermined area 502 (e.g. a first region defined by a first virtual fence) within a field of view 500 of the active reflected wave detector 206, and the second predetermined condition may comprise that the object has moved towards a second predetermined area 504 (e.g. a second region defined by a second virtual fence) within the field of view 500 of the active reflected wave detector 206. If this example second predetermined condition is met, this indicates that the intruder has not moved away from the area of interest in a desired direction despite the device 102 outputting the deterrent at step S408 and has instead moved in a direction towards a sensitive area that is more of a security threat (e.g. they have got closer to a building, paragraph 0125)
As per claim 4, Amir et al. disclose the one or more processors being configured
to generate a profile corresponding to the determined one or more criteria of the entity
(The second predetermined condition may be based at least on kinetic information
associated with the person e.g. their speed of travel. For example, the second
predetermined condition may be that the speed of the person does not exceed a
predetermined threshold. If this example second predetermined condition is met, this
may indicate that the intruder is moving out of the area of interest but are doing it too
slowly, or they are simply not moving such that they are staying at the same location.
The speed information may be provided by the tracking module referred to above,
paragraph 0129).
As per claim 7, Amir et al. disclose the one or more processors are configured to
determine, responsive to playing the first sound, one or more second criteria of the
entity; and identify the second sound corresponding to the one or more criteria, the state
of the area, and the one or more second criteria. ("Taking the example where at step
S408 the CPU 202 controls the speaker 218 to emit an audible speech message, at
step S412 the CPU 202 may control the speaker to increase the volume of the emitted
audible speech message and/or to output a different audible speech message.
Alternatively or additionally, at step S412, the CPU 202 may control the speaker 218 to
emit a non-speech sound e.g. a warning siren. Alternatively or additionally, at step S412
the CPU 202 may control the lighting device 216 to emit light as a visual deterrent to the
intruder in a manner as described above with respect to the deterrent output at step
S408.", paragraph 137 & Figure 4).
As per claim 8, Amir et al. disclose the one or more processors are configured
to: identify a third sound corresponding to the one or more criteria, the state of the area,
the first sound, and the second sound; and play, by a second speaker device located
separately from the speaker device, the third sound to deter the entity from perpetrating
the event. ("Whilst not shown in FIG. 4, after a predetermined time period has elapsed
after output of the deterrent at step S412, the CPU 202 may process further measured
wave reflection data accrued by the active reflected wave detector 206 to determine that
an object has moved from the deterrent zone towards the device 102 into an alarm zone
(which in this illustrative example is the inner most zone located closest to the device
102). In response to this determination the CPU 202 controls the speaker 218 to emit
audio in the form of an alarm siren, paragraph 0148).
As per claim 9, Amir et al. disclose the one or more processor being configure to:
capture, by the image device (208), image of the entity in the area (paragraph
0071); and transmit the image of the entity to a client device (110, 114) associated with the area (paragraph 0114).
As per claim 10, Amir et al. disclose the first sound and the second sound being
played in at least partial concurrence (figure 4, if both 1st and 2ⁿᵈ predetermined
conditions are met close enough together, the output device will output both deterrents
concurrently).
As per claims 11-12, 14 and 17-20, The method claims 11-12, 14 and 17-20 are
essentially the same in scope as system claims 1-2, 4 and 7-10 above and are rejected
similarly.
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, 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) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Amir et al. (US 2023/0245541) in view of Harel (2021/0201640).
As per claim 5, Amir et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for the
state being one or more of a time of day, a resident within the area, or a holiday. Harel
discloses a perimeter protecting apparatus (200) comprises a plurality of cameras (211,
212, 213, 214) and One of such a vetting process is trying to perform Face Recognition,
and if successful, it performs search of a previously train data, looking for a match to
one of the Home Owners, or previously captured family members, hired help, or any
other previously authorized person whose face are part of a "white listed" people,
paragraph 0041. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the
apparatus as taught by Harel in a system as disclosed by Amir et al. for the purpose of
determining the home owner's face as a resident within the area in order to preventing a
false alarm.
As per claim 6, Harel discloses identifying the first sound corresponding
to the one or more criteria and a state of the area includes providing the state and the
one or more criteria as inputs to a machine learning model to generate the first sound,
("The present invention, in embodiments thereof, provides a system and methods which
may implement a combination of computer vision tools, machine learning techniques,
canned messages announcements over a loudspeaker, speech recognition based
dialoging, and interactive procedures, all together comprising an Al system which
facilitates an automatic assessment of people who enter or leave a monitored
perimeter", paragraph 0015).
As per claims 15-16, The method claims 15-16 are essentially the same in scope
as system claims 5-6 above and are rejected similarly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 05, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a simple typographical error and requests clarification on the specific reference cited as support of the double patenting rejection. Examiner admits that it is a type-error. The double patenting rejection is based on a copending Application No. 2024/0296725 (18/595,230, reference application). The rejection is newly corrected as above.
Applicant argues that Amir does not teach at least the use of a "mapping between the one or more criteria and the first sound," as recited in claim 1. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 1 under $102 be withdrawn. Examiner does not agree. The "mapping between the one or more criteria and the first sound," is just added by amendment filed on May 05, 2026. Examiner believes Amir (in paragraphs 0101-0105) disclose the CPU (202) identified entity (target object) being located in a predetermined area within a field of view of the active reflected wave detector, wherein the correspond to a region defined by a virtual fence within the field of view of the active reflected wave detector (paragraph 0101) and a first predetermined condition in respect of the object is met, the CPU (202) determines that an intruder is present in an area of interest. Therefore, Amir reference read on the claim’s limitation of “identify a first sound corresponding to the one or more criteria and a state of the
area; play, by a speaker device, the first sound to deter the entity from perpetrating an event within the area based on a mapping between the one or more criteria and the first sound”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAI T. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm.
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.
/TAI T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights