MDETAILED 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the communication circuitry, first interface, and second interface must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There is no description of Figure 4A in the Brief Description of Drawings.
Paragraph 51, Line 3: The word “available” appears to be in a different font size than the rest of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a first electronic device positioned exterior of a building and a battery configured to be positioned exteriorly from the building, does not reasonably provide enablement for communication circuitry to communicate data via a wireless network, a first interface to removably and electrically couple the first electronic device to the battery, and second interface configured to electrically couple to the first interface and couple to a second electronic device. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Aside from the recitation of the claimed subject matter in the Summary of the invention, there is no enabling subject matter for the communication circuitry or the first and second interfaces. Indeed, no enabling description of the two separate interfaces are found anywhere in the Detailed Description or the drawings.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scalisi [US 2020/0143644] (supplied by applicant) in view of Scheucher [US 2009/0086043] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 1, the outdoor comfort-and-security system (Title: Outdoor Security System) taught by Scalisi teaches the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed at least one electronic device is met by the security device (No. 10) configured to be positioned around an exterior premise of a building (Fig. 1), each electronic device comprising communication circuitry (No. 60) configured to communicate data via a wireless network (see i.e., Fig. 14 and 27), and 2) the claimed battery is met by the battery (No. 43) configured to power a respective primary function of the at least one electronic device and to enable the communication circuitry to communicate via the wireless network (Paragraph 135: The battery 43 may be configured to provide power to at least one of the light 20, the camera 22, the at least one directional microphone 55, and/or any other electrical component). However, the battery of Scalisi is not physically distinct from the at least one electronic device.
Separate batteries are not new in the prior art. The cordless security camera taught by Scheucher presents a lightweight, cordless security camera having a video camera and audio microphone that can be used in emergency matters and security zones that can communicate information to the proper authorities. One important aspect of the reference is a separate replaceable battery (No. 105) and power converter unit (No. 106) that is kept within a shroud or skirt (No. 103). This shroud is mounted using a block (No. 107) near the camera device.
One important advantage mentioned in the Scheucher reference is that it provides a quick-disconnect style battery pack (Paragraph 7) as well as providing additional battery packs to prolong operating time. A security element that operates all day and night would drain the battery, and having to disassemble the element to get to the battery would cause unnecessary hassle when the battery needs to be changed. And the Scalisi reference has numerous security elements having their own battery. It would be annoying to have to dig up each element just to change the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a separate and distinct battery for the electronic device in Scalisi for the purpose of facilitating battery replacement for the electronic device.
For claim 2, the system of Scheucher also contemplates power input modules (Paragraph 31) using solar panels or fuel cells to recharge the batteries.
For claim 5, the Scheucher reference also includes a shroud or skirt (No. 103) defining a cavity to receive the batteries.
For claim 7, the electronic device of Scalisi may comprise a camera (No. 22).
For claim 8, the electronic device of Scalisi may comprise a motion detector (No. 28).
For claim 9, the electronic device of Scalisi may comprise at least one light (No. 20).
For claim 10, the communication module (No. 60) of Scalisi enables communication between the security device and other devices, such as remote computing devices (Paragraph 108).
For claim 11, in some embodiments of Scalisi, the wireless communication module comprises a Wi-Fi extender or Wi-Fi router (Paragraph 108). Also, computing devices used in Scalisi may include cellular phones and cellular networks (Paragraph 61).
For claim 12, the battery (No. 43) of Scalisi is configured to power at least one electronic device (No. 10) of an outdoor comfort-and-security system of a building, wherein the battery is configured to be positioned exteriorly from the building (i.e., with the device seen in Fig. 23), and wherein the battery comprises a minimum power output configured to power a respective primary function of the at least one electronic device and to enable communication circuitry of the at least one electronic device to communicate data via a wireless network (Paragraph 135: The battery 43 may be configured to provide power to at least one of the light 20, the camera 22, the at least one directional microphone 55, and/or any other electrical component). However, the battery of Scalisi is not physically distinct from the at least one electronic device.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
For claim 13, the system of Scheucher also contemplates power input modules (Paragraph 31) using solar panels or fuel cells to recharge the batteries.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scalisi in view of Scheucher and Hicks, III [U.S. 8,692,665].
For claim 17, the first electronic device (No. 10) for an outdoor comfort-and-security system taught by Scalisi comprises communication circuitry (No. 60) configured to communicate data via a wireless network (see i.e., Fig. 14 and 27), and a battery (No. 43) configured to be positioned exteriorly from the building (i.e., with the device No. 10), and having a minimum power output configured to power a primary function of the first electronic device and to enable the communication circuitry of the first electronic device to communicate the data via the wireless network (Paragraph 135: The battery 43 may be configured to provide power to at least one of the light 20, the camera 22, the at least one directional microphone 55, and/or any other electrical component). However, there is no mention of a first interface configured to removably and electrically couple the first electronic device to the battery.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above. The Scheucher reference also includes a power and/or communication cable (No. 104) to connect the batteries with the camera.
Another claimed element not found in either reference above is a second interface to electrically couple to the first interface and to couple a second electronic device of the comfort-and-security system.
Connecting multiple elements in a security system in a serial fashion is not new in the prior art. It’s called daisy-chain wiring and has been used for many years. The system for security services taught by Hicks teaches a security system having an alarm controller (No. 106) with an alarm sensor (No. 108) connected thereto. More than one sensor may be used in order to monitor a zone where multiple sensors are required. The Hicks reference mentions daisy chain wiring (Col. 22, Lns. 32-34) where multiple sensors are needed to cover a zone.
And the Scalisi reference teaches a number of security devices to monitor a zone (see Figs. 1 and 18b). Connecting each of these devices in a daisy chain is but one way to connect these devices in order to configure the alarm system as shown in Hicks in addition to a “star” configuration. The point is that a number of connections and interfaces are available to a user or designer of the security system and the one that fits their own premises would depend on their home setup or personal preferences. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interface a second electronic device to the device of Scalisi in order to take advantage of a proven sensor architecture that has been used in the prior art.
For claim 18, the electronic device of Scalisi can be a camera (No. 22), motion detector (No. 28), or light (No. 20).
For claim 19, the battery of Scheucher is physically distinct from its electronic device.
For claim 20, the system of Scheucher also contemplates power input modules (Paragraph 31) using solar panels or fuel cells to recharge the batteries.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scalisi in view of Scheucher as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Stude et al [US 2021/0074960] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 3, neither the Scalisi nor the Scheucher references mention a housing for the battery comprising at least two nested waterproof layers.
The Stude reference presents a multi-layer heat insulation element for thermal insulation of a battery (Abstract). As seen in Figures 1A-1C, two cover layers (Nos. 2 and 3) are used to house the battery. In addition to the heat insulation properties, the cover layers are designed to be water-repellent (Paragraph 21) and gas-tight.
The Stude reference presents a useful housing for batteries wherein a water-resistant and heat-insulated cover may be used to protect the batteries. And for outdoor devices such as those used in both Scalisi and Scheucher, these would be ideal in order to protect them from weather and the elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two nested layers to protect the batteries of Scheucher or Scalisi in order to extend the use and life of the batteries.
For claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scalisi in view of Scheucher and Stude as applied to claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of Sparka [U.S. 9,991,053].
For claim 4, the Stude reference mentions an interlayer (No. 6) having a certain dielectric strength (Paragraph 100). However, this is not described as a dielectric gel.
Dielectric layers can be made of more than one substance. The power capacitor of Sparka comprises several layers, two of which (Nos. 15-16) may be interlayered between a housing wall (No. 8) and one or more busbars (Nos. 4 and 5). These layers may be in the form of a dielectric film or dielectric gel (Col. 4, Lns. 47-49) or a dielectric resin. One important advantage of this layer is to discharge any harmful interference currents (Col. 2, Lns. 2-3).
The Sparka reference shows that dielectric materials can be diverse, including resins and gels as well as films. And the Stude reference also includes a layer having dielectric properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gel as the dielectric layer of Stude for the purpose of using a well-known dielectric substance.
For claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scalisi in view of Scheucher as applied to claims 5 and 12 above, and further in view of Bachelder et al [US 2007/0291115].
For claim 6, the exterior surface of the concealment device found in Scheucher is not selected from a group consisting of a landscaping rock, a brick, planting pot, or combination thereof.
Both the Scalisi and Scheucher references are meant to be used outdoors. And the Scalisi reference in particular is seen as used in a lawn or landscaping environment. And security elements have been disguised in the prior art. The remote video surveillance system taught by Bachelder includes a plurality of camera modules (No. 12) that also relay their information in near real-time back to a base station (No. 14). The system is also designed for an outdoor environment and is camouflaged to meet the surrounding conditions (Paragraph 27).
And the Scalisi reference would also benefit from camouflage in order to match its surroundings. An intruder would not think twice about a rock or tree stump as opposed to a rectangular housing having lenses poking through. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to camouflage the devices found in Scalisi for the purpose of reducing conspicuousness among potential intruders.
For claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 6 above.
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
8/25/2026
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights