Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 19/006,386

AI SECURITY SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Dec 31, 2024
Priority
Jul 15, 2021 — continuation of 11/626,002 +2 more
Examiner
TWEEL JR, JOHN ALEXANDER
Art Unit
2689
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Tabor Mountain LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
1198 granted / 1449 resolved
+20.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1463
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
61.3%
+21.3% vs TC avg
§102
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§112
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1449 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 21-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,819. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current independent claims are merely slightly broader versions of the independent claims of the ‘819 reference. The claims of the parent patent do not mention artificial intelligence; however, they do mention a machine learning model, which is considered similar in function to artificial intelligence. A machine learning model can be considered a type of artificial intelligence and vice versa. A prior art rejection has not been formulated in this Office action as the subject matter of the independent claims are sufficiently unobvious when compared to the prior art. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art references have used sensors to detect emergency conditions as seen in the building security system taught by Poder [U.S. 12,412,466]. Also, the equipment for navigation and map generation taught by Kruse et al [U.S. 12,435,990] can provide instructions that are iteratively updated (Claim 1). However, the claims of the current application also use artificial intelligence to detect the event in the environment wherein the AI is trained to correlate the received sensor data with different types of events in conjunction with updating the egress guidance for the user based on both the sensor data and user feedback that is receive from the sensor device. This is considered unobvious subject matter. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Donegan et al [U.S. 11,875,661] provides distributed security event monitoring. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4. 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 W 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. JAT 3/23/2026 /JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 31, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12640019
SECURITY SYSTEM FOR AN ENVIRONMENT
1y 11m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12631464
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE
1y 9m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12617484
STRADDLE VEHICLE
3y 5m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12614448
STATUS ALERT SYSTEM, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SECURITY SYSTEMS
1y 10m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12604942
VISUAL COMMUNICATION SYSTEM FOR A HELMET
1y 10m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+10.1%)
1y 11m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1449 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month