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 because the various rectangular (or near-rectangular) boxes representing functional blocks or components in Figs 1-3 (e.g. 110, 120, 122, 124, 126, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180a-f, 182 and 190 in fig 1, 120, 180, 182, 190, 240 and 260 in fig 2, and 310-360 in fig 3), which are blank other than containing a reference numeral, should be provided with “descriptive legends”, per 37 CFR 1.84(o), with reference numeral placed outside the box/block in an appropriate manner. 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because its word count is greater than 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-6, 10-12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laurans (US Patent No. 20220148413 A1).
In re claim 1, Laurans teaches A safety and security system (Abstract: “A building alarm system and automated door lock arranged to place the alarm system in an armed state when a door lock fails to engage to lock an associated door in a closed position.”) comprising:
a remote server communicatively coupleable to one or more user devices (SEE FIG 1, base station 1 communicating with server 8, and para [0027]: “…upon an alarm system detecting an emergency condition, the alarm system (e.g., a base station 1 or a monitoring server 8 or lock server 51 which receives notice of an alarm condition from the base station 1) may generate and send a unique first responder code to first responder personnel (e.g., directly to first responder personnel communication devices via a wireless network, and/or via the authorities communication devices 9).”);
one or more emergency triggering mechanisms installed in a premise for responding to emergency events (para [0027]: “…upon an alarm system detecting an emergency condition, the alarm system (e.g., a base station 1 or a monitoring server 8 or lock server 51 which receives notice of an alarm condition from the base station 1) may generate and send a unique first responder code to first responder personnel (e.g., directly to first responder personnel communication devices via a wireless network, and/or via the authorities communication devices 9).”);
a smart door lock (SEE FIG 1, door lock 2) for locking and unlocking a door of the premise, wherein the smart door lock is unlockable by inputting a passcode to the smart door lock (Para [0015]: “…the building 3 is equipped with one or more door locks 2 that are arranged to engage to lock an associated door 31 in a closed position, and to disengage to unlock the door 31.”, para [0026]: “In another aspect of the invention, a door lock may be arranged to disengage to permit movement of an associated door from a closed position to an open position in response to a first responder code… a door lock may disengage from a locked state to an unlocked state in response to receipt of a first responder code.”); and
a control panel communicatively coupled to each of the one or more emergency triggering mechanisms, the smart door lock and the remote server (SEE FIG 1, base station 1 communicating with server 8, and para [0027]: “…upon an alarm system detecting an emergency condition, the alarm system (e.g., a base station 1 or a monitoring server 8 or lock server 51 which receives notice of an alarm condition from the base station 1) may generate and send a unique first responder code to first responder personnel (e.g., directly to first responder personnel communication devices via a wireless network, and/or via the authorities communication devices 9).”);
wherein the safety and security system is configured to:
generate, by the one or more emergency triggering mechanisms, at least one emergency signal in response to an emergency event (Para [0029]: “…an alarm system can detect an emergency condition in response to a signal from a user device that is activated by a person, e.g., the user device may include a panic button and when a user presses the panic button, the user device may send a signal from the user device to the base station indicating an emergency condition.”);
transmit, by the one or more emergency triggering mechanisms, the at least one emergency signal to the control panel (Para [0029]: “…the user device may send a signal from the user device to the base station indicating an emergency condition.”);
generate, by the control panel, a temporary passcode to temporarily unlock the smart door lock so as to open the door of the premise upon receiving the at least one emergency signal from the one or more emergency triggering mechanisms (para [0027]: “…upon an alarm system detecting an emergency condition, the alarm system (e.g., a base station 1 or a monitoring server 8 or lock server 51 which receives notice of an alarm condition from the base station 1) may generate and send a unique first responder code to first responder personnel (e.g., directly to first responder personnel communication devices via a wireless network, and/or via the authorities communication devices 9).” and para [0028]: “In some embodiments, the first responder code may expire once the alarm condition that prompted sending of the first responder code is cleared. Thus, the code may be used multiple times during a single emergency condition, but once the alarm condition is cleared, the code may be made invalid. In some embodiments, the first responder code may be valid and usable only once or for a period of time, such as 30 minutes, after an alarm condition is indicated by an alarm system, even if the alarm condition is cleared. After the period of time, the code may be invalid.”);
transmit, by the control panel, the temporary passcode and the at least one emergency signal to the remote server such that the temporary passcode is obtainable by a human operator (Para [0029]: “…the base station 1 or monitoring server 8 can provide information to authorities communication devices 9, e.g., to summon medical personnel to the building 3, and/or to the lock server 51, which sends a signal to the door lock 2 indicating that a first responder code is usable to gain entry to the building 3. As noted above, a first responder code may be sent to first responder personnel, e.g., from the lock server 51 to the authorities communication devices 9, and/or to the door lock 2 so that the first responder code can be used to cause the door lock 2 to disengage.”);
transmit, by the control panel, the temporary passcode to the smart door lock (SEE Para [0027] and [0029]); and
enable, by the control panel or the smart door lock, the temporary passcode such that the smart door lock is unlockable by the temporary passcode in a predefined period of time (SEE para [0028] and Para [0029]: “…the lock server 51, which sends a signal to the door lock 2 indicating that a first responder code is usable to gain entry to the building 3.”).
Method claim 11 and non-transitory medium claim 16 are rejected for the same reasons as system claim 1 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 2, Laurans teaches wherein the one or more emergency triggering mechanisms comprise at least one emergency button each actuatable by a user in the premise in response to a medical emergency (Para [0029]: “In other embodiments, an alarm system can detect an emergency condition in response to a signal from a user device that is activated by a person, e.g., the user device may include a panic button and when a user presses the panic button, the user device may send a signal from the user device to the base station indicating an emergency condition.”).
In re claim 3, Laurans teaches wherein in response to any of the at least one emergency button being actuated, the actuated emergency button is operable to generate and transmit the at least one emergency signal (Para [0029]: “In other embodiments, an alarm system can detect an emergency condition in response to a signal from a user device that is activated by a person, e.g., the user device may include a panic button and when a user presses the panic button, the user device may send a signal from the user device to the base station indicating an emergency condition.”).
In re claim 4, Laurans teaches wherein the one or more emergency triggering mechanisms comprise at least one fire sensor each configured to generate and transmit the at least one emergency signal in response to a fire (Para [0029]: “The alarm system may detect an emergency condition in other ways, such as based on information from one or more sensors such as a smoke or fire sensor, and so on.”).
In re claim 5, Laurans teaches wherein the predefined period of time for the temporary passcode is less than 1 hour (Para [0028]: “In some embodiments, the first responder code may be valid and usable only once or for a period of time, such as 30 minutes, after an alarm condition is indicated by an alarm system, even if the alarm condition is cleared. After the period of time, the code may be invalid.”).
In re claim 6, Laurans teaches further configured to disable the temporary passcode upon expiry of the predefined period of time (Para [0028]: “In some embodiments, the first responder code may expire once the alarm condition that prompted sending of the first responder code is cleared. Thus, the code may be used multiple times during a single emergency condition, but once the alarm condition is cleared, the code may be made invalid. In some embodiments, the first responder code may be valid and usable only once or for a period of time, such as 30 minutes, after an alarm condition is indicated by an alarm system, even if the alarm condition is cleared. After the period of time, the code may be invalid.”).
In re claim 10, Laurans teaches further comprising one or more user devices; wherein the safety and security system is configured to relay, by the remote server, the temporary passcode and the emergency signal to the one or more user devices via a data network (Para [0027]: “For example, first responder personnel may be provided with a key fob, access card or similar device that can communicate a first responder code to a door lock. The key fob or other device can provide the first responder code via wired or wireless communication, such as by plugging the key fob into a reader or other communications interface that communicates the first responder code to the door lock. Such systems can be implemented using RFID tags, card readers or similar communications systems. In other embodiments, the first responder code can be typed, spoken or otherwise entered by first responder personnel, e.g., using a key pad or other user input at the building. The first responder code may be provided in encrypted form, e.g., when communicated electronically via wired or wireless communications, to help reduce a chance that unauthorized people can gain access to or otherwise use the first responder code in an unauthorized way… For example, upon an alarm system detecting an emergency condition, the alarm system (e.g., a base station 1 or a monitoring server 8 or lock server 51 which receives notice of an alarm condition from the base station 1) may generate and send a unique first responder code to first responder personnel (e.g., directly to first responder personnel communication devices via a wireless network, and/or via the authorities communication devices 9). When first responder personnel arrive at the building, the personnel may provide the first responder code to the alarm system and/or door lock, e.g., via short range RF communications, manually entering the code into a user interface, displaying the code for optical reading by the alarm system or door lock, etc. After the first responder code generated for the alarm condition is used to gain access, the code may expire and not be usable again for another alarm condition.”).
Method claim 15 and non-transitory medium claim 20 are rejected for the same reasons as system claim 10 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 12, Laurans teaches further comprising disabling, by the control panel or the smart door lock, the temporary passcode upon expiry of the predefined period of time (Para [0028]: “In some embodiments, the first responder code may expire once the alarm condition that prompted sending of the first responder code is cleared. Thus, the code may be used multiple times during a single emergency condition, but once the alarm condition is cleared, the code may be made invalid. In some embodiments, the first responder code may be valid and usable only once or for a period of time, such as 30 minutes, after an alarm condition is indicated by an alarm system, even if the alarm condition is cleared. After the period of time, the code may be invalid.”).
Non-transitory medium claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 12 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
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 7-9, 13-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurans (US Patent No. 20220148413 A1), in view of Rogers (US Patent No. 20210358238 A1).
In re claim 7, Laurans teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach further configured to verify, by the remote server, whether the at least one emergency signal is true or false.
However, Rogers teaches further configured to verify, by the remote server, whether the at least one emergency signal is true or false (Para [0039]: “In another example, if the alarm signal is determined by the system 100 to be highly likely a false positive, then the application server 130 may instead perform a verification operation prior to transmitting a door unlock instruction.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Laurans to incorporate the teachings of Rogers to provide further configured to verify, by the remote server, whether the at least one emergency signal is true or false with the ALARM SYSTEM WITH FIRST RESPONDER CODE FOR BUILDING ACCESS of Laurans. Doing so enables substantiating the emergency condition indicated by the received alarm signal, as recognized by Rogers (Para [0039]).
Method claim 13 and non-transitory medium claim 18 are rejected for the same reasons as system claim 7 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 8, Laurans and Rogers teach all of the limitations of claim 7 stated above where Laurans further teaches further configured to disable the temporary passcode (Para [0028]: “In some embodiments, the first responder code may expire once the alarm condition that prompted sending of the first responder code is cleared. Thus, the code may be used multiple times during a single emergency condition, but once the alarm condition is cleared, the code may be made invalid. In some embodiments, the first responder code may be valid and usable only once or for a period of time, such as 30 minutes, after an alarm condition is indicated by an alarm system, even if the alarm condition is cleared. After the period of time, the code may be invalid.”).
The combination fails to teach when the at least one emergency signal is false.
However, Rogers teaches when the at least one emergency signal is false (Para [0039]: “In another example, if the alarm signal is determined by the system 100 to be highly likely a false positive, then the application server 130 may instead perform a verification operation prior to transmitting a door unlock instruction.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Laurans and Rogers to further incorporate the teachings of Rogers to provide when the at least one emergency signal is false with the ALARM SYSTEM WITH FIRST RESPONDER CODE FOR BUILDING ACCESS of Laurans. Doing so enables substantiating the emergency condition indicated by the received alarm signal, as recognized by Rogers (Para [0039]).
In re claim 9, Laurans teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach further configured to unlock remotely, by the remote server, the smart door lock via a data network.
However, Rogers teaches further configured to unlock remotely, by the remote server, the smart door lock via a data network (Para [0014]: “In response to determining that the user has indicated the emergency condition, a system may (i) transmit an emergency signal to emergency responders so that emergency responders will come to the property and (ii) identify a locking mechanism associated with the front door of the property and automatically transmit an instruction to the identified locking mechanism to unlock the front door. The transmission of the unlock instruction allows emergency responders to enter the property without forcible entry even when the user is unable to manually unlock the front door.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Laurans to incorporate the teachings of Rogers to provide further configured to unlock remotely, by the remote server, the smart door lock via a data network with the ALARM SYSTEM WITH FIRST RESPONDER CODE FOR BUILDING ACCESS of Laurans. Doing so allows emergency responders to enter the property without forcible entry even when the user is unable to manually unlock the front door, as recognized by Rogers (Para [0014]).
In re claim 14, Laurans and Rogers teach all of the limitations of claim 13 stated above where Laurans further teaches further comprising disabling, by the control panel or the smart door lock, the temporary passcode (Para [0028]: “In some embodiments, the first responder code may expire once the alarm condition that prompted sending of the first responder code is cleared. Thus, the code may be used multiple times during a single emergency condition, but once the alarm condition is cleared, the code may be made invalid. In some embodiments, the first responder code may be valid and usable only once or for a period of time, such as 30 minutes, after an alarm condition is indicated by an alarm system, even if the alarm condition is cleared. After the period of time, the code may be invalid.”).
The combination fails to teach when the at least one emergency signal is false.
However, Rogers teaches when the at least one emergency signal is false (Para [0039]: “In another example, if the alarm signal is determined by the system 100 to be highly likely a false positive, then the application server 130 may instead perform a verification operation prior to transmitting a door unlock instruction.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Laurans and Rogers to further incorporate the teachings of Rogers to provide when the at least one emergency signal is false with the ALARM SYSTEM WITH FIRST RESPONDER CODE FOR BUILDING ACCESS of Laurans. Doing so enables substantiating the emergency condition indicated by the received alarm signal, as recognized by Rogers (Para [0039]).
Non-transitory medium claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 14 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD MUNION whose telephone number is (571)270-0437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/JAMES E MUNION/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 07/11/2026
Prosecution Insights