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 .
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 1-12 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 they are directed to “computer readable medium” but not limited to non-transitory mediums.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breed (US 20160050264).
Regarding claim 1, A system, comprising: a computing system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one computer-readable medium storing a plurality of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (“The output of the detector 48 is processed by a processor 50. Processors 50 include devices that execute instructions and/or perform mathematical, logical, control, or input/output operations. The processor 50 of the sensor 14 may be a specialized processor having limited processing capabilities and designed to run in low-power environments. For example, the processor 50 of the sensor 14 may implement the Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) or Acorn RISC Machine (ARM) architecture. Examples of processors 50 include the Atom™ family of processors from Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, Calif., the A4 family of processors from Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, Calif., the Snapdragon™ family of processors from Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. of San Diego Calif., and the Cortex® family of processors from ARM Holdings, PLC of Cambridge, England. The processor 50 may also be a custom processor.” Breed: paragraph 73)
receive an alarm signal from a premises monitoring system that is configured to monitor a premises, the alarm signal being associated with an alarm event at a premises monitored by the premises monitoring system; receive alarm event data associated with the alarm event; (“The architecture management process 82 interacts with sensors and output devices distinct from the sensor 14 and output device 18 of the monitored zone 12.” Breed: paragraph 109)
receive additional alarm event data, the additional alarm event data: being captured by a first premises device that is not part the premises monitoring system; and being associated with the alarm event; (“For example, if the unprocessed data forwarded by the sensor 14 of the monitored zone 12 is insufficient to trigger an alarm condition or a change in the state of the architecture 10, but the architecture management process 82 determines that further consideration of the data is required, the architecture management process 82 sends a request for supplemental data to a sensor 28 in the external zone 26. Such a sensor is referred to herein as a secondary sensor.” Breed: paragraph 109)
perform at least one analytics operation on the alarm event data and the additional alarm event data to determine at least one result; and initiate at least one action based on the at least one result of the at least one analytics operation. (“The data from the secondary sensor is considered in conjunction with the unprocessed data provided by the primary sensor. When the combined data is evaluated holistically, a different determination can be made regarding whether to change the state of the architecture or trigger follow-up actions. For example, if the primary sensor data indicates that smoke may be present in a room (but perhaps does not rise to the threshold to generate an alarm), a nearby temperature sensor such as a thermometer in a thermostat may be consulted to determine if the temperature in the room is abnormal. If so, an alarm may be triggered.” Breed: paragraph 112)
Regarding claim 2, The system of claim 1, wherein the additional alarm event data associated with the alarm event comprises one or both of video content and audio content generated by the first premises device that is located at the premises. (“Moreover, data from secondary sensors may be used to improve the detection capabilities of primary sensors. For example, if a primary glass break sensor records a sound that could be the sound of a window breaking, but the sound is distorted by extraneous noise, data from a secondary sensor (such as the microphone on a nearby video camera) could be used to filter out the extraneous noise and provide a clearer signal.” Breed: paragraph 114)
Regarding claim 4, The system of claim 1, wherein the additional alarm event data comprises doorbell video data. (“Moreover, data from secondary sensors may be used to improve the detection capabilities of primary sensors. For example, if a primary glass break sensor records a sound that could be the sound of a window breaking, but the sound is distorted by extraneous noise, data from a secondary sensor (such as the microphone on a nearby video camera) could be used to filter out the extraneous noise and provide a clearer signal.” Breed: paragraph 114)
Regarding claim 12, The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one action comprises causing transmission, to a mobile device corresponding to an authorized user of the premises monitoring system, of a notification associated with the alarm event. (“Examples of output devices include notification devices such as speakers, strobe lights, a motor that induces vibration in a mobile device” Breed: paragraph 48)
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 1 stated above.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 2 stated above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 4 stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and once the 101 rejections are also overcome.
Claims 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor suggest receiving additional alarm event data from a third-party device that is not configured to communicate with the premises monitoring system (claim 3).
The prior art does not disclose nor suggest receiving metadata associated with the alarm even from a third-party cloud storage system (claims 5, 16).
The prior art does not disclose nor suggest updating a value of a current alarm score based on an output of the analytics operation and contacting a first responder based on the score (claims 6-11, 17-20).
Conclusion
Related Art:
US 20210012115 A1 – premises monitoring system
US 10650652 B1 – premises monitoring system
US 20170351787 A1 – premises monitoring system
US 20170263092 A1 – premises monitoring system
US 20140063191 A1 – access control system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS R HUNNINGS whose telephone number is (571)272-3118. The examiner can normally be reached M: 6-7:30a, 9:30a-4:45p, 8:30-10p; T: 6-7:30a, 12-4p, 7:30p-12a; W: 6-7:30a, 9:30a-4:45p; H: 6-7:30a, 8:15a-4:45p; F: 12:00-4:45p.
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 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.
/TRAVIS R HUNNINGS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights