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 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,772(‘772) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,786,425(‘525).
-- Claims 21, 29, and 37 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claims 19 of ‘772, including:
1) the system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers to cause the one or more computers to perform operations, is equivalent to the system and computers of ‘772
2) receiving from a device, a first input, and determining whether the first input matches a duress condition is equivalent to the receiving by a device that controls one or more operations of a monitoring system at a property, user input that indicates a user providing the user input is involved in a duress situation;
- ‘772 does not teach:
1) in response to determining that the first input matches the duress condition, transmitting, to a second, different system, a first message indicating a potential duress condition and the location of the device
2) triggering transmission of a location of the device and activation of a delay sequence
3) in response to determining that the first input matches the duress condition:
i) transmitting, to a second, different system, a first message indicating a potential duress condition and the location of the device
ii) initiating the delay sequence with a time period
iii) determining whether a second input was received during the time period
iv) transmitting, to the second, different system, a second message using a result of the determination whether a second input was received during the time period.
Use of systems which recite the above stated features is well known. In related art, Hutz teaches an alarm monitoring system, wherein an aberration engine is utilized to determine if detected events qualify as alarm events that require reporting to a central monitoring station. Hutz teaches that an aberration engine provides alerts when alarms are triggered, but initiates a delay period prior to alarm activation, so that a user may deactivate the alarm by providing appropriate input prior to expiration of the dialer delay period(see: Hutz, column 12, lines 26-46). As well, Hutz teaches that information transmitted to the central station includes nature of the emergency, as well as device location(see: Hutz, column 8, lines 24-45).
Since the use of delay systems which prevent alarms from being transmitted until input by a user of the system is activated, as taught by Hutz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the user input and alarm delay features of Hutz, into the system of claim 1, since this would have helped ensure a reduction in false alarms in the system.
-- Claim 29 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 21, and therefore is obvious for the reasons as discussed with regards to claim 21 above, as well as the computer programs stored on storage devices, as taught by Hutz(see: column 27 lines 48 et seq; column 28 lines 1-15).
-- Claim 37 recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 21, and therefore is obvious for the reasons as discussed with claim 21 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claims 21-40 recite one or more computer storage media encoded with instructions. A review of the specification shows that the storage media has not been specifically defined, and therefore, does not preclude transitory media. This does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, because the claimed media is/are directed to a signal per se.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In related art, Wiley et al(USPat 9,183,730 B1) teaches a system for mitigating invasion risk associated with a security system environment, wherein a homeowner can make a duress entry that appears to be an all clear, but in fact triggers a silent alarm.
In related art, Woodard et al(USPGPUB 2008/0129497) teaches a reconfigurable alarm apparatus, wherein SDR alarm apparatus(5) can detect hazards in a monitored environment, and activations SDR communication and positioning module(25) to initiate a wireless 911 emergency call, thereby providing emergency identification and positioning information to a dispatch center(see: Woodard, sec[0027]). As well, Woodard teaches the use of SDR alarm apparatus(5) comprising multipurpose alarm status/disable and time delay circuitry provided to automatically or manually execute a diagnostic routine that verifies the operation status so suppress nuisance alarm events or inadvertent calls, and execute a time delay to temporarily delay the output of alarm singles for predetermined time periods(see: Woodard, sec[0055]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686