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
Claims 3, 5, 10, 13, 18 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, 10 and 18 recite “aligned with a time associated with the change in state of the at least one of the plurality of sensors”. They are presumed to recite “aligned with the time associated with the change in state of the at least one of the plurality of sensors”. See at least claim 1, line 12, and claims 9 and 17.
Claims 5, 13 and 21 recite “the historical sensor state values”. They are presumed to recite “the first plurality of historical sensor state values and the second plurality of historical sensor state values”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims of currently pending Application No. 18/989,209 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No(s). 11,355,000 and 12,217,597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application No. 18/989,209 are obvious variants of the claims of U.S. Patent No(s). 11,355,000 and 12,217,597.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-9, 12, 13, 15-17, 20, 21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McLaughlin (US 2018/0091381 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McLaughlin discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a computing device (see at least [0190-0191]):
a first set of sensor state values indicating states of a plurality of sensors prior to a change in state of at least one of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0140] note when accessories change state, the accessories report their respective states (e.g., light is turned on/off, garage is opened/closed, etc.), such that when a user is going to work, the lights can be turned on (LON) and garage door closed (GDC) (first set), then a state change occurs where the lights can be turned off (LOFF) and garage door opened (GDO) (second set), and when the user leaves the lights are still turned off (LOFF) and the garage door is closed (GLC) (third set), wherein the accessory state database stores these state changes); and
a second set of sensor state values indicating states of the plurality of sensors after the change in state of the at least one of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0140] note the user turns off the lights (LOFF) and opens the garage door (GDO) as they prepare to go to work); and
sending an anomalous activity alert (see at least [0130-0131] note anomalous accessory state alert),
wherein the sending is based on:
a comparison between a first plurality of historical sensor state values and the first set of sensor state values (see at least [0141] note the historical accessory state change event data in the database is analyzed to determine which accessories and/or accessory states are associated or related to each other (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC) | [0142] note the relatedness algorithm can determine a pattern of use or a pattern of accessory state changes over time that indicates that a group of accessories and/or accessory states are related (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC), and recur over time (e.g., Monday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Tuesday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Wednesday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Thursday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Friday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC));
comparison between a second plurality of historical sensor state values and the second set of sensor state values (see at least [0142] note the relatedness algorithm can determine a pattern of use or a pattern of accessory state changes over time that indicates that a group of accessories and/or accessory states are related and recur over time (e.g., Monday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Tuesday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Wednesday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Thursday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Friday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC) | [0143] note that a scene can be suggested based on the identified pattern (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC)); and
a time, associated with the change in state of the at least one of the plurality of sensors, corresponding to a time window associated with the first plurality of historical sensor state values and the second plurality of historical sensor state values (see at least [0130-0131] note an anomalous accessory state can be detected when a current accessory state (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLO) does not correspond to an expected accessory state (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC), wherein the home application can determine the expected accessory state similarly to determining a scene, see [0140-0141], and can detect when the current activity (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLO) and context (e.g., 6 am and stays open for 10 minutes) do not comport with normal/expected activity (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC) and context (e.g., 6 am and stays open for 5 minutes, which is derived from history) and present a notification to the user to draw the user’s attention to the anomalous accessory state).
Regarding claim 4, McLaughlin discloses wherein the sending the anomalous activity alert is further based on: a score associated with one or more prior changes in state of one or more of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0130] note the relatedness algorithm | [0080-0081] note support and confidence scores).
Regarding claim 5, McLaughlin discloses wherein the historical sensor state values comprise recorded times associated with prior changes in state of one or more of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0140] note accessory state changes include timestamps).
Regarding claim 7, McLaughlin discloses wherein the first set of sensor state values indicates a state of at least one window and a state of at least one door (see at least [0140] note the garage door | [0034] note the various accessories, such as a door, door lock, lighting fixture, windows, etc., that report their accessory states).
Regarding claim 8, McLaughlin discloses wherein the first set of sensor state values indicates state changes of a first door and a second door (see at least [0140] note the garage door and that the lock is locked/unlocked state could correspond to a doorway to the garage or other front/side/back door of the house | [0034] note the various accessories, such as a door, door lock, lighting fixture, windows, etc., that report their accessory states).
Regarding claim 9, McLaughlin discloses a computing device (see at least [0190-0191]) comprising:
one or more processors (see at least [0190-0191]); and
memory storing instructions that (see at least [0190-0191]), when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to:
determine:
a first set of sensor state values indicating states of a plurality of sensors prior to a change in state of at least one of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0140] note when accessories change state, the accessories report their respective states (e.g., light is turned on/off, garage is opened/closed, etc.), such that when a user is going to work, the lights can be turned on (LON) and garage door closed (GDC) (first set), then a state change occurs where the lights can be turned off (LOFF) and garage door opened (GDO) (second set), and when the user leaves the lights are still turned off (LOFF) and the garage door is closed (GLC) (third set), wherein the accessory state database stores these state changes); and
a second set of sensor state values indicating states of the plurality of sensors after the change in state of the at least one of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0140] note the user turns off the lights (LOFF) and opens the garage door (GDO) as they prepare to go to work); and
send an anomalous activity alert (see at least [0130-0131] note anomalous accessory state alert),
wherein the sending is based on:
a comparison between a first plurality of historical sensor state values and the first set of sensor state values (see at least [0141] note the historical accessory state change event data in the database is analyzed to determine which accessories and/or accessory states are associated or related to each other (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC) | [0142] note the relatedness algorithm can determine a pattern of use or a pattern of accessory state changes over time that indicates that a group of accessories and/or accessory states are related (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC), and recur over time (e.g., Monday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Tuesday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Wednesday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Thursday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Friday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC));
a comparison between a second plurality of historical sensor state values and the second set of sensor state values (see at least [0142] note the relatedness algorithm can determine a pattern of use or a pattern of accessory state changes over time that indicates that a group of accessories and/or accessory states are related and recur over time (e.g., Monday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Tuesday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Wednesday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Thursday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Friday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC) | [0143] note that a scene can be suggested based on the identified pattern (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC)); and
a time, associated with the change in state of the at least one of the plurality of sensors, corresponding to a time window associated with the first plurality of historical sensor state values and the second plurality of historical sensor state values (see at least [0130-0131] note an anomalous accessory state can be detected when a current accessory state (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLO) does not correspond to an expected accessory state (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC), wherein the home application can determine the expected accessory state similarly to determining a scene, see [0140-0141], and can detect when the current activity (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLO) and context (e.g., 6 am and stays open for 10 minutes) do not comport with normal/expected activity (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC) and context (e.g., 6 am and stays open for 5 minutes, which is derived from history) and present a notification to the user to draw the user’s attention to the anomalous accessory state).
Regarding claim 12, McLaughlin discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computing device to send the anomalous activity alert further based on: a score associated with one or more prior changes in state of one or more of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0130] note the relatedness algorithm | [0080-0081] note support and confidence scores).
Regarding claim 13, McLaughlin discloses wherein the historical sensor state values comprise recorded times associated with prior changes in state of one or more of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0140] note accessory state changes include timestamps).
Regarding claim 15, McLaughlin discloses wherein the first set of sensor state values indicates a state of at least one window and a state of at least one door (see at least [0140] note the garage door | [0034] note the various accessories, such as a door, door lock, lighting fixture, windows, etc., that report their accessory states).
Regarding claim 16, McLaughlin discloses wherein the first set of sensor state values indicates state changes of a first door and a second door (see at least [0140] note the garage door and that the lock is locked/unlocked state could correspond to a doorway to the garage or other front/side/back door of the house | [0034] note the various accessories, such as a door, door lock, lighting fixture, windows, etc., that report their accessory states).
Regarding claim 17, McLaughlin discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, configure a computing device (see at least [0190-0191]) to:
determine:
a first set of sensor state values indicating states of a plurality of sensors prior to a change in state of at least one of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0140] note when accessories change state, the accessories report their respective states (e.g., light is turned on/off, garage is opened/closed, etc.), such that when a user is going to work, the lights can be turned on (LON) and garage door closed (GDC) (first set), then a state change occurs where the lights can be turned off (LOFF) and garage door opened (GDO) (second set), and when the user leaves the lights are still turned off (LOFF) and the garage door is closed (GLC) (third set), wherein the accessory state database stores these state changes); and
a second set of sensor state values indicating states of the plurality of sensors after the change in state of the at least one of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0140] note the user turns off the lights (LOFF) and opens the garage door (GDO) as they prepare to go to work); and
send an anomalous activity alert (see at least [0130-0131] note anomalous accessory state alert),
wherein the sending is based on:
a comparison between a first plurality of historical sensor state values and the first set of sensor state values (see at least [0141] note the historical accessory state change event data in the database is analyzed to determine which accessories and/or accessory states are associated or related to each other (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC) | [0142] note the relatedness algorithm can determine a pattern of use or a pattern of accessory state changes over time that indicates that a group of accessories and/or accessory states are related (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC), and recur over time (e.g., Monday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Tuesday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Wednesday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Thursday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Friday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC));
a comparison between a second plurality of historical sensor state values and the second set of sensor state values (see at least [0142] note the relatedness algorithm can determine a pattern of use or a pattern of accessory state changes over time that indicates that a group of accessories and/or accessory states are related and recur over time (e.g., Monday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Tuesday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Wednesday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Thursday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC, Friday LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC) | [0143] note that a scene can be suggested based on the identified pattern (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC)); and
a time, associated with the change in state of the at least one of the plurality of sensors, corresponding to a time window associated with the first plurality of historical sensor state values and the second plurality of historical sensor state values (see at least [0130-0131] note an anomalous accessory state can be detected when a current accessory state (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLO) does not correspond to an expected accessory state (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC), wherein the home application can determine the expected accessory state similarly to determining a scene, see [0140-0141], and can detect when the current activity (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLO) and context (e.g., 6 am and stays open for 10 minutes) do not comport with normal/expected activity (e.g., LON-GDC→LOFF-GDO→LOFF-GLC) and context (e.g., 6 am and stays open for 5 minutes, which is derived from history) and present a notification to the user to draw the user’s attention to the anomalous accessory state).
Regarding claim 20, McLaughlin discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the computing device to send the anomalous activity alert further based on: a score associated with one or more prior changes in state of one or more of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0130] note the relatedness algorithm | [0080-0081] note support and confidence scores).
Regarding claim 21, McLaughlin discloses wherein the historical sensor state values comprise recorded times associated with prior changes in state of one or more of the plurality of sensors (see at least [0140] note accessory state changes include timestamps).
Regarding claim 23, McLaughlin discloses wherein the first set of sensor state values indicates a state of at least one window and a state of at least one door (see at least [0140] note the garage door | [0034] note the various accessories, such as a door, door lock, lighting fixture, windows, etc., that report their accessory states).
Regarding claim 24, McLaughlin discloses wherein the first set of sensor state values indicates state changes of a first door and a second door (see at least [0140] note the garage door and that the lock is locked/unlocked state could correspond to a doorway to the garage or other front/side/back door of the house | [0034] note the various accessories, such as a door, door lock, lighting fixture, windows, etc., that report their accessory states).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19 and 22 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19 and 22, McLaughlin (US 2018/0091381 A1) and Hutz (US 9,165,455 B1) do not disclose and/or fairly suggest the limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, 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 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689