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 .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
This Office Action is in response to application filed on 1/17/2025, where claims 1-7 are currently pending.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claim 1 has been provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the US Patent No. 12,231,257 (hereinafter the ‘257 Patent).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application and the corresponding claim of the ‘257 Patent are disclosing the invention of receiving a signal from a premises monitoring system or device; determining the signal comprises a primary alert notification; and causing a second home entertainment device to enter an active state in response to determining that the signal comprises the primary alert notification. Claim 1 of the instant application being a manufacture claim, includes the additional well-known structure(s) to perform the above method. Therefore, for the above reason(s), the claims are obvious variation of each other.
Claims 2-7 of the instant application are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness type double patenting over claims 2-7 respectively of the ‘257 Patent, as the claims of the instant application disclose substantially similar limitations as the corresponding claims of the ‘257 Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected to because of the following: independent claim 1 recites “in response to determining that the signal comprises a primary alert notification, causing a second home entertainment device to enter…” The elements “primary alert notification” and “second home entertainment device” are recited with the article “a”, which indicates each element is the first instance of their respective element. However, both element have been recited in prior limitations; therefore, it is unclear whether they are the same or different and distinct elements. As such, render the claim indefinite. It is suggested to amend the above limitation to “in response to determining that the signal comprises the primary alert notification, causing the second home entertainment device to enter…” if each element recited above is intended to refer to the previously recited respective element. It is suggested to amend each element recited above to include an unique identifier, e.g., first, second, third, etc., if each element is intended to be different and distinct from each other.
Claims 2-7 are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claim they depend from.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayek et al., (US 2019/0051265 A1) (hereinafter Hayek).
Referring to claim 1, Hayek teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable media having stored thereon instructions wherein the instruction, when executed by a first home entertainment device communicatively coupled to a second home entertainment device (¶ [0035], “an overlay device such as an alarm gateway configured to plug into a video monitor input”), cause the first home entertainment to perform steps comprising:
receiving a signal from a premises monitoring system or device (¶ [0035], figs. 2-4, “receive premises status messages from a premises device”);
determining that the signal comprises a primary alert notification, the primary alert notification comprising an indication of an occurrence of an event associated with a premises being monitored by the premises monitoring system or device (¶ [0064], “determine the premises status message correspond to a premises condition for immediate display on the video monitor 56”); and
in response to determining that the signal comprises a primary alert notification, causing a second home entertainment device to enter an active state from a quiescent state and to emit a secondary alert (¶ [0042], “The overlay 17 may be configured to generate media to display premises status messages on a television or other video monitor.” ¶ [0047], “Siren 40 may be an eighty-five decibel (dB) siren, among other audible devices known in the art. Siren 40 may be an optional component in overlay device 17 such that audible alerts are generated by user interface device 12, e.g., portable control keypad/interface 12a, and not overlay device 17.” ¶ [0010], “determine the premises status message correspond to a premises condition for immediate display on the video monitor, and when the video monitor is powered OFF, initiate a power ON sequence to power the video monitor to an ON state to display the premises status message indicating the premises condition.”)
Referring to claim 2, Hayek further teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the secondary alert comprises at least one of an audible alert and a visual alert (¶ [0035], “display the premises status messages”).
Referring to claim 5, Hayek further teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the home entertainment device comprises a television (¶ [0034], television).
Referring to claim 6, Hayek further teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable media method of claim 1, wherein the home entertainment device comprises a set top box (¶ [0035], figs. 2-4, “an overlay device such as an alarm gateway configured to plug into a video monitor input, such as an HDMI input, and configured to receive premises status messages from a premises device in order to display the premises status messages on the video monitor. An example of this embodiment is shown in FIGS. 2, 3 and 4 and described in detail below.”)
Referring to claim 7, Hayek further teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the first home entertainment device to perform further steps comprising:
determining an event type of the event associated with a premises; and
based on the event type, causing an audible or visual file to be selected as the secondary alert (¶ [0018], “when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine the premises status message is for immediate display on the video monitor, and when the video monitor is powered OFF, initiate a power ON sequence to power the video monitor to an ON state to display the premises status message indicates the alarm condition at the premises.” Examiner recognizes the whether the premises status message is for immediate display or not as the event type.)
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayek as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Albert et al., (US 2006/0017558 A1) (hereinafter Albert).
Referring to claim 3, Hayek teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 1. However, Hayek does not explicitly teach the primary alert notification comprises an audible alert…converting the audible alert into an electronic signal; and
processing the electronic signal to determine whether the electronic signal is indicative of the primary alert notification.
Albert teaches the primary alert notification comprises an audible alert (¶ [0018], “audible alarm from a pre-existing alarm device”)…converting the audible alert into an electronic signal (¶ [0061], figs. 1-4, “the microphone first converts sounds into voltage or other electrical signals.”); and
processing the electronic signal to determine whether the electronic signal is indicative of the primary alert notification (¶ [0060], “‘Listening’ for the smoke alarm is accomplished using the microphone 8 and microprocessor 10 utilizing digital acoustic signal recognition technology. Matched filtering technology can be used and such filter algorithms prevent or minimize the occurrence of false alarms from noise. The matched filter acts as a type of fingerprint-matching to identify whether the signals passed match the frequencies and pulse pattern of the smoke alarm being monitored.”)
Hayek and Albert are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for premise monitoring system (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Hayek and Albert before them to modify the overlay device of Hayek to incorporate the function of processing audible alert by Albert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Albert (¶ [0056]-[0061]), because the function of processing audible alert does not depend on the overlay device. That is the function of processing audible alert performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to wake children, hearing impaired, and elderly in response to an emergency as suggested by Albert (¶ [0001]).
Referring to claim 4, Hayek teaches the non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 1. However, Hayek does not explicitly teach in response to determining that the signal comprises the primary alert notification, causing a mobile device communicatively coupled to the first…device to emit a further secondary alert notification for alerting an authorized person of the monitoring system of the primary alert.
Albert teaches in response to determining that the signal comprises the primary alert notification, causing a mobile device communicatively coupled to the first…device to emit a further secondary alert notification for alerting an authorized person of the monitoring system of the primary alert (¶ [0130], “When the central receiving station receives an alarm indicating signal sent from the personal computer, the central receiving station can transmit a notification signal. The signals sent from the central station Internet site can be of any suitable type such as, without limitation, pager, telephone, or e-mail or other Internet transmissions. These communications can be directed to community authorities, such as the police or fire department, and they can be sent to the home owner/business owner (e.g., instant messages, e-mail, phone, cell phone "hotmail," 911, etc.).”)
Hayek and Albert are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are concerning with interface for premise monitoring system (i.e., same field of endeavor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having Hayek and Albert before them to modify the overlay device of Hayek to incorporate the function of sending alarm to central receiving station by Albert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods as disclosed by Albert (¶ [0128]-[0131]), because the function of sending alarm to central receiving station does not depend on the overlay device. That is the function of sending alarm to central receiving station performs the same function independent on which interface it is incorporated onto, and therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine would have been to alert authorities of emergency as suggested by Albert (¶ [0130]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2006/0087428 (Wolfe) – discloses system and method for providing home awareness to television viewers.
US 2020/0143649 (Coonley) – discloses system for distributed threat detection.
US 2009/0191839 (Cannon) – discloses system for observing objects, sending alarms, and initiating remedial actions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-SHUNE CHUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-5817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9-5) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
