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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-30, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
2. Applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged. The application is filed on 05/14/2025 but claims the benefit of
US continuation 17898285 20220829 parent-grant-document US Patent 12307880.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2025 and 07/07/25 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1:
Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes. The claim is a method claim.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determining sensor messages based on measured strength. This limitation, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “determining sensor messages based on measured magnetic field strength,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “determining sensor messages based on measured strength of magnetic field , the claim encompasses a user simply determining sensor messages based on measured strength from magnetic sensor in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic magnetic sensor for determining sensor messages based on measured strength does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements: sending message to modify threshold for alarm condition and setting of a modified threshold for alarm condition performs the step based on determination. The step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering data for use in the modifying step), and amounts to mere data gathering or manipulations, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The modifying step for threshold that performs the step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the sending message for modifying threshold for detecting alarm).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the magnetic sensors for determining field strength). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determination step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the driver circuit is anything other than a generic, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or determination of data over a driver circuit is a well understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the determining step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Similar analysis applied for claims 2-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Regarding claims 14, 22 and 30, the phrase " messages may have occurred" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Double Patenting
6. Claims 1-30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over a claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12307880 B2 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, 14-17, 19, 21-25, 27, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lamb (US 20170032633 A1) (hereinafter Lamb) in view of Hollis (US 20160165323 A1) (hereinafter Hollis).
Regarding claim 1, Lamb discloses a method (para 21, FIG. 1 security system, door 100 and a window 102 are monitored by programmable alarms 104 and 106, respectively and comprises a magnet 108 and a sensor 110) comprising: determining, by a computing device and based on a plurality of first sensor messages (Abstract, determine a value of a first electronic signal from magnetic field detector), indicating a corresponding plurality of measured strengths of a magnetic field, a reduction in a strength of the magnetic field (para 34, magnetic field detector 404 detect strength, direction, magnetic field detector 404 comprises a magnetoresistive sensor, which changes value in proportion to a strengths, para 37, magnetic field detector 404 increase as magnetic field strengths increases as magnet 108 is moved closer to sensor 110, para 49, magnetic field detector 404 detect a weak or non-existent magnetic field strengths, due to magnet 108 is positioned a relatively far distance from sensor 110 (i.e. due to reduction in strength for far position));
sending, from the computing device to a user device, a second message comprising a request to modify a first threshold for detecting an alarm condition (para 74, If the signal from magnetic field detector 404 is greater than a predetermined value, generates an alarm signal, para 61, If, however, a comparison of one or more readings from magnetic field detector 404 against alarm threshold value indicates that magnetic field threshold has decreased below the alarm threshold value, then generates an alarm signal, para 11, generating an alarm signal if any of the electronic signals are less than the first threshold or greater than the second threshold, para 41, alarm to monitor information provided by magnetic field detector 404 for changes in one or more states, physical conditions, attributes, status, or parameters).
Lamb fails to discloses causing, by the computing device and based on an instruction from the user device, setting of a modified threshold, lower than an original threshold, for detecting the alarm condition.
In analogous art, Hollis discloses causing, by the computing device and based on an instruction from the user device, setting of a modified threshold, lower than an original threshold, for detecting the alarm condition (para 42, monitoring and control system compares measurement of magnetic field to predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field and when change in magnetic field exceeds predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field, monitoring system enters an alarm state and send alerts regarding an intrusion event, para 53, compare magnetic field a predefined threshold level of change of the magnetic field and to transmit an alarm signal when a level of change in magnetic field exceeds predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field, para 77, cause system to activate when a level measured meets or exceeds a predefined threshold level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb to activate system for detecting the motion or displacement of a specific object that a sensor is attached as taught by Hollis to confirm displacement of sensor and cause system to transmit a signal when a level of change in magnetic field measured meets or exceeds a predefined threshold level of change in the magnetic field [Hollis, para 77].
Regarding claim 2, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second message further comprises a proposed modified threshold value (Abstract, compare electronic signals from the magnetic field detector to the first and second threshold values, and generate an alarm signal if any of the electronic signals are less than the first threshold or greater than the second threshold, para 29, entering a state where one or more thresholds may be set, thresholds for determining status of the window (e.g., open, closed, partially opened, open more than a predetermined distance, etc.)).
Regarding claim 3, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the reduction in the strength of the magnetic field further comprises determining that each measured strength of the plurality of measured strengths of the magnetic field is within a predetermined range of the original threshold (para 54, processor 400 determines alarm threshold values, based on first and second magnetic field values, determining whether alarm condition exists, e.g., whether opened more than a predetermined amount and alarm threshold value threshold based on second magnetic field value, para 49, magnetic field detector 404 detect magnetic field strength, due to fact that magnet 108 is positioned a relatively far distance).
Regarding claim 4, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the reduction in the strength of the magnetic field further comprises determining that each measured strength of the plurality of measured strengths of the magnetic field is lower than a first measured strength of the magnetic field by at least a predetermined amount (para 49, magnetic field detector 404 detect magnetic field strength, due to magnet 108 is positioned far distance, para 61, comparison of readings from magnetic field detector 404 against stored alarm threshold value indicates that magnetic field strength has decreased below alarm threshold value, then generates an alarm signal).
Regarding claim 5, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising causing setting of the original threshold to be a predetermined amount less than a first measured strength of the magnetic field (para 61, comparison of readings from magnetic field detector 404 against stored alarm threshold value indicates that magnetic field strength has decreased below alarm threshold value, generates alarm signal, para 49, 61, magnetic field detector 404 strength detect a weak or non-existent magnetic field strength, due to the fact that magnet 108 is positioned a relatively far distance).
Regarding claim 6, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing setting of the modified threshold further comprises causing setting of the modified threshold to be a predetermined amount less than a lowest measured strength of the corresponding plurality of measured strengths of the magnetic field (para 61, If, comparison of readings from magnetic field detector 404 against stored alarm threshold value indicates that magnetic field strength has decreased below alarm threshold value, then generates an alarm signal).
Regarding claim 7, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing setting of the modified threshold further comprises causing setting of the modified threshold to be a predetermined amount less than an average measured strength of the corresponding plurality of measured strengths of the magnetic field (para 10, generate an alarm signal if any of the electronic signals are less than first threshold, para 41, If processor 400 determines that predetermined conditions have been satisfied, indicating occurrence of alarm condition, para 41, monitor information provided by magnetic field detector 404 for changes in one or more states, physical conditions, attributes, status, or parameters of something being monitored, such as the condition).
Regarding claim 9, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second message further comprises an indication of the reduction in the strength of the magnetic field (para 61, comparison of readings from magnetic field detector 404 against stored alarm threshold value indicates that magnetic field strength has decreased below alarm threshold value, then generates an alarm signal or alert that alarm event has occurred).
Regarding claim 11, Lamb fails to discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing setting of the modified threshold further comprises causing setting of the modified threshold based on a user input.
In analogous art, Hollis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing setting of the modified threshold further comprises causing setting of the modified threshold based on a user input (para 42, monitoring and control system compares measurement of magnetic field to predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field and when change in magnetic field exceeds predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field, monitoring system enters an alarm state and send alerts regarding an intrusion event, para 53, compare magnetic field a predefined threshold level of change of the magnetic field and to transmit alarm signal when level of change in magnetic field exceeds predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field, para 77, cause system to activate when level measured meets or exceeds predefined threshold level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb to activate system for detecting the motion or displacement of a specific object that a sensor is attached as taught by Hollis to confirm displacement of sensor and cause system to transmit a signal when a level of change in magnetic field measured meets or exceeds a predefined threshold level of change in the magnetic field [Hollis, para 77].
Regarding claim 12, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the computing device from a sensor associated with the plurality of first sensor messages, a third message indicating an additional measured strength of the magnetic field (an alarm signal thus messages periodically including first and second message which may be generated and transmitted to an alarm panel located nearby, indicative of the door or window status (e.g., "open", "closed", "partially open", "open more than X inches", transition between any of these states, etc. Paragraph 20, 22, 24);
comparing, by the computing device, the additional measured strength of the magnetic field to the modified threshold ((value compared to memory where field is at small percentage thus partially open, Paragraph 20, 54); and
sending, from the computing device to the user device based on the additional measured strength of the magnetic field not satisfying the modified threshold, a fourth message indicating the alarm condition (barrier is open strength is below threshold or field eliminated thus zero and messaging barrier is open, para, 20, 22-23, 24, 54, 60) .
Regarding claim 14, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second message further comprises an indication that a change in a position of a sensor associated with the plurality of first sensor messages may have occurred (para 61, processor 400 generates an alarm signal, comprising a signal to alert one or more entities that a local alarm event has occurred, e.g., a door or window has opened, para 41, If processor 400 determines that one or more predetermined conditions have been satisfied, indicating occurred of alarm condition, it generates an alarm signal).
Regarding claim 15, Lamb discloses an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (para 21, FIG. 1 security system, door 100 and a window 102 are monitored by programmable alarms 104 and 106, respectively and comprises a magnet 108 and a sensor 110), cause the apparatus to:
determine, based on a plurality of first sensor messages (Abstract, determine a value of a first electronic signal from magnetic field detector), indicating a corresponding plurality of measured strengths of a magnetic field, a reduction in a strength of the magnetic field (para 34, magnetic field detector 404 detect strength, direction, magnetic field detector 404 comprises a sensor, which changes value in proportion to a strengths, para 37, magnetic field detector 404 increase as magnetic field strengths increases as magnet 108 is moved closer to sensor 110, para 49, magnetic field detector 404 detect a weak or non-existent magnetic field strengths, due to magnet 108 is positioned a relatively far distance from sensor 110 (i.e. due to reduction in strength for far position));
send, to a user device, a second message comprising a request to modify a first threshold for detecting an alarm condition (para 74, If the signal from magnetic field detector 404 is greater than a predetermined value, generates an alarm signal, para 61, If, however, a comparison of one or more readings from magnetic field detector 404 against alarm threshold value indicates that magnetic field threshold has decreased below the alarm threshold value, then generates an alarm signal, para 11, generating an alarm signal if any of the electronic signals are less than the first threshold or greater than the second threshold, para 41, alarm to monitor information provided by magnetic field detector 404 for changes in one or more states, physical conditions, attributes, status, or parameters).
Lamb fails to discloses cause, based on an instruction from the user device, setting of a modified threshold, lower than an original threshold, for detecting the alarm condition.
In analogous art, Hollis discloses cause, based on an instruction from the user device, setting of a modified threshold, lower than an original threshold, for detecting the alarm condition (para 42, monitoring and control system compares measurement of magnetic field to predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field and when change in magnetic field exceeds predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field, monitoring system enters alarm state and send alerts regarding an intrusion event, para 53, compare magnetic field predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field and to transmit an alarm signal when a level of change in magnetic field exceeds predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field, para 77, cause system to activate when a level measured meets or exceeds a predefined threshold level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb to activate system for detecting the motion or displacement of a specific object that a sensor is attached as taught by Hollis to confirm displacement of sensor and cause system to transmit a signal when a level of change in magnetic field measured meets or exceeds a predefined threshold level of change in the magnetic field [Hollis, para 77].
Regarding claim 16, Lamb discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the second message further comprises a proposed modified threshold value (Abstract, compare electronic signals from the magnetic field detector to the first and second threshold values, and generate alarm signal if any of electronic signals are less than first threshold or greater than second threshold, para 29, entering a state where one or more thresholds may be set, thresholds for determining status of the window (e.g., open, closed, partially opened, open more than a predetermined distance, etc.)).
Regarding claim 17, Lamb discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors further cause the apparatus to cause setting of the modified threshold to be a predetermined amount less than an average measured strength of the corresponding plurality of measured strengths of the magnetic field (para 61, comparison of readings from magnetic field detector 404 against stored alarm threshold value indicates that magnetic field strength has decreased below alarm threshold value, then generates an alarm signal, para 49, 61, magnetic field detector 404 strength detect a weak or non-existent magnetic field strength, due to the fact that magnet 108 is positioned a relatively far distance).
Regarding claim 19, Lamb discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the second message further comprises an indication of the reduction in the strength of the magnetic field (para 61, comparison of readings from magnetic field detector 404 against stored alarm threshold value indicates that magnetic field strength has decreased below alarm threshold value, then generates an alarm signal or alert that alarm event has occurred).
Regarding claim 21, Lamb fails to discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors further cause the apparatus to cause setting of the modified threshold based on a user input.
In analogous art, Hollis discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors further cause the apparatus to cause setting of the modified threshold based on a user input (para 42, monitoring and control system compares measurement of magnetic field to predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field and when change in magnetic field exceeds predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field, monitoring system enters an alarm state and send alerts regarding an intrusion event, para 53, compare magnetic field a predefined threshold level of change of the magnetic field and to transmit alarm signal when level of change in magnetic field exceeds predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field, para 77, cause system to activate when level measured meets or exceeds predefined threshold level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb to activate system for detecting the motion or displacement of a specific object that a sensor is attached as taught by Hollis to confirm displacement of sensor and cause system to transmit a signal when a level of change in magnetic field measured meets or exceeds a predefined threshold level of change in the magnetic field [Hollis, para 77].
Regarding claim 22, Lamb discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the second message further comprises an indication that a change in a position of a sensor associated with the plurality of first sensor messages may have occurred (para 61, processor 400 generates an alarm signal, comprising a signal to alert one or more entities that a local alarm event has occurred, e.g., a door or window has opened, para 41, If processor 400 determines that one or more predetermined conditions have been satisfied, indicating occurred of alarm condition, it generates an alarm signal).
Regarding claim 23, Lamb discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed (para 21, FIG. 1 security system, door 100 and a window 102 are monitored by programmable alarms 104 and 106, respectively and comprises a magnet 108 and a sensor 110), cause:
determining, by a computing device and based on a plurality of first sensor messages (Abstract, determine a value of a first electronic signal from magnetic field detector), indicating a corresponding plurality of measured strengths of a magnetic field, a reduction in a strength of the magnetic field (para 34, magnetic field detector 404 detect strength, direction, magnetic field detector 404 comprises a sensor, which changes value in proportion to a strengths, para 37, magnetic field detector 404 increase as magnetic field strengths increases as magnet 108 is moved closer to sensor 110, para 49, magnetic field detector 404 detect a weak or non-existent magnetic field strengths, due to magnet 108 is positioned a relatively far distance from sensor 110 (i.e. due to reduction in strength for far position));
sending, from the computing device to a user device, a second message comprising a request to modify a first threshold for detecting an alarm condition (para 74, If the signal from magnetic field detector 404 is greater than a predetermined value, generates an alarm signal, para 61, If, however, a comparison of one or more readings from magnetic field detector 404 against alarm threshold value indicates that magnetic field threshold has decreased below the alarm threshold value, then generates an alarm signal, para 11, generating an alarm signal if any of the electronic signals are less than the first threshold or greater than the second threshold, para 41, alarm to monitor information provided by magnetic field detector 404 for changes in one or more states, physical conditions, attributes, status, or parameters).
Lamb fails to discloses causing, by the computing device and based on an instruction from the user device, setting of a modified threshold, lower than an original threshold, for detecting the alarm condition.
In analogous art, Hollis discloses causing, by the computing device and based on an instruction from the user device, setting of a modified threshold, lower than an original threshold, for detecting the alarm condition (para 42, monitoring and control system compares measurement of magnetic field to predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field and when change in magnetic field exceeds predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field, monitoring system enters an alarm state and send alerts regarding an intrusion event, para 53, compare magnetic field a predefined threshold level of change of the magnetic field and to transmit an alarm signal when a level of change in magnetic field exceeds predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field, para 77, cause system to activate when a level measured meets or exceeds a predefined threshold level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb to activate system for detecting the motion or displacement of a specific object that a sensor is attached as taught by Hollis to confirm displacement of sensor and cause system to transmit a signal when a level of change in magnetic field measured meets or exceeds a predefined threshold level of change in the magnetic field [Hollis, para 77].
Regarding claim 24, Lamb discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the second message further comprises a proposed modified threshold value (Abstract, compare electronic signals from the magnetic field detector to the first and second threshold values, and generate an alarm signal if any of the electronic signals are less than the first threshold or greater than the second threshold, para 29, entering a state where one or more thresholds may be set, thresholds for determining status of the window (e.g., open, closed, partially opened, open more than a predetermined distance, etc.)).
Regarding claim 25, Lamb discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause setting of the modified threshold to be a predetermined amount less than an average measured strength of the corresponding plurality of measured strengths of the magnetic field (para 54, processor 400 determines alarm threshold values, based on first and second magnetic field values, determining whether alarm condition exists, e.g., whether opened more than a predetermined amount and alarm threshold value threshold based on second magnetic field value, para 49, magnetic field detector 404 detect magnetic field strength, due to fact that magnet 108 is positioned a relatively far distance).
Regarding claim 27, Lamb discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the second message further comprises an indication of the reduction in the strength of the magnetic field (para 61, comparison of readings from magnetic field detector 404 against stored alarm threshold value indicates that magnetic field strength has decreased below alarm threshold value, then generates an alarm signal or alert that alarm event has occurred).
Regarding claim 29, Lamb fails to discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause setting of the modified threshold based on a user input.
In analogous art, Hollis discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause setting of the modified threshold based on a user input (para 42, monitoring system compares measurement of magnetic field to predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field and change in magnetic field exceeds predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field, monitoring system enters alarm state and send alerts regarding an intrusion event, para 53, compare magnetic field a predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field and to transmit alarm signal when level of change in magnetic field exceeds predefined threshold level of change of magnetic field, para 77, cause system to activate when level measured meets or exceeds predefined threshold level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb to activate system for detecting the motion or displacement of a specific object that a sensor is attached as taught by Hollis to confirm displacement of sensor and cause system to transmit a signal when a level of change in magnetic field measured meets or exceeds a predefined threshold level of change in the magnetic field [Hollis, para 77].
Regarding claim 30 , Lamb discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the second message further comprises an indication that a change in a position of a sensor associated with the plurality of first sensor messages may have occurred (para 61, processor 400 generates an alarm signal, comprising a signal to alert one or more entities that a local alarm event has occurred, e.g., a door or window has opened, para 41, If processor 400 determines that one or more predetermined conditions have been satisfied, indicating occurred of alarm condition, it generates an alarm signal).
11. Claims 8, 10, 18, 20, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lamb (US 20170032633 A1) (hereinafter Lamb) in view of Hollis (US 20160165323 A1) (hereinafter Hollis) and further in view of Jakobsson (US 20200053100 A1) (hereinafter Jakobsson).
Regarding claim 8, Lamb and Hollis fails to discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the instruction from the user device comprises approval of a proposed modified threshold value.
In analogous art, Jakobsson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the instruction from the user device comprises approval of a proposed modified threshold value (para 96, determination is made by comparing responses to a first threshold, comparing number of negative responses to a second threshold, or comparing the total number of (positive or negative) responses to a third threshold, or any combination and system may modify according to comparisons or the values, para 47, score is either used to compare to a threshold to generate a determination of whether challenge was successfully responded to, or scores used to make a security determination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb and Hollis to modify a parameter of an access-controlled account associated with a set of sensor devices as taught by Jakobsson to compare to a threshold to generate a determination of whether challenge was successfully responded to, or one or more scores can be used to make a security determination and confirm triggering event to notify user [Jakobsson, para 47].
Regarding claim 10, Lamb and Hollis fails to discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second message further comprises an indication of a potential problem with a sensor associated with the plurality of first sensor messages.
In analogous art, Jakobsson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second message further comprises an indication of a potential problem with a sensor associated with the plurality of first sensor messages (para 48, conflict resolution is needed at any point, as it allows administrators and law enforcement to determine identity of a potential abuser, para 47, score is either used to compare to a threshold to generate a determination of whether challenge was successfully responded to, or scores used to make a security determination, para 41, reject is a response that causes a negative signal to be sent to system, “report” sends and escalate review of potential abuse, by people concerned with safety).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb and Hollis to activate system for detecting the motion or displacement of a specific object that a sensor is attached as taught by Jakobsson to confirm triggering event is the receipt of a request from a user to make a change to the state that is considered high-security, sensitive, or otherwise in need for a PoP verification [Jakobsson, para 72].
Regarding claim 18, Lamb and Hollis fails to discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the instruction from the user device comprises approval of a proposed modified threshold value.
In analogous art, Jakobsson discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the instruction from the user device comprises approval of a proposed modified threshold value (para 96, determination is made by comparing responses to a first threshold, comparing number of negative responses to a second threshold, or comparing the total number of (positive or negative) responses to a third threshold, or any combination and system may modify according to comparisons or the values, para 47, score is either used to compare to a threshold to generate a determination of whether challenge was successfully responded to, or scores used to make a security determination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb and Hollis to modify a parameter of an access-controlled account associated with a set of sensor devices as taught by Jakobsson to compare to a threshold to generate a determination of whether challenge was successfully responded to, or one or more scores can be used to make a security determination and confirm triggering event to notify user [Jakobsson, para 47].
Regarding claim 20, Lamb and Hollis fails to discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the second message further comprises an indication of a potential problem with a sensor associated with the plurality of first sensor messages.
In analogous art, Jakobsson discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the instruction from the user device comprises approval of a proposed modified threshold value (para 96, determination is made by comparing responses to a first threshold, comparing number of negative responses to a second threshold, or comparing the total number of (positive or negative) responses to a third threshold, or any combination and system may modify according to comparisons or the values, para 47, score is either used to compare to a threshold to generate a determination of whether challenge was successfully responded to, or scores used to make a security determination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb and Hollis to activate system for detecting the motion or displacement of a specific object that a sensor is attached as taught by Jakobsson to confirm triggering event is the receipt of a request from a user to make a change to the state that is considered high-security, sensitive, or otherwise in need for a PoP verification [Jakobsson, para 72].
Regarding claim 26, Lamb and Hollis fails to discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the instruction from the user device comprises approval of a proposed modified threshold value.
In analogous art, Jakobsson discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the instruction from the user device comprises approval of a proposed modified threshold value (para 96, determination is made by comparing responses to a first threshold, comparing number of negative responses to a second threshold, or comparing number of (positive or negative) responses to a third threshold, or any combination and system modify according to comparisons or values, para 47, score is either used to compare to threshold to generate determination of whether challenge successfully responded to, or scores used to make security determination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb and Hollis to modify a parameter of an access-controlled account associated with a set of sensor devices as taught by Jakobsson to compare to a threshold to generate a determination of whether challenge was successfully responded to, or one or more scores can be used to make a security determination and confirm triggering event to notify user [Jakobsson, para 47].
Regarding claim 28, Lamb and Hollis fails to discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the second message further comprises an indication of a potential problem with a sensor associated with the plurality of first sensor messages.
In analogous art, Jakobsson discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the second message further comprises an indication of a potential problem with a sensor associated with the plurality of first sensor messages (para 96, determination is made by comparing responses to a first threshold, comparing number of negative responses to a second threshold, or comparing the total number of (positive or negative) responses to a third threshold, or any combination and system may modify according to comparisons or the values, para 47, score is either used to compare to a threshold to generate a determination of whether challenge was successfully responded to, or scores used to make a security determination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb and Hollis to activate system for detecting the motion or displacement of a specific object that a sensor is attached as taught by Jakobsson to modify a parameter of an access-controlled account associated with a set of sensor devices and to confirm triggering event is the receipt of a request from a user to make a change to the state that is considered high-security, sensitive, or otherwise in need for a PoP verification [Jakobsson, para 72].
12. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lamb (US 20170032633 A1) (hereinafter Lamb) in view of Hollis (US 20160165323 A1) (hereinafter Hollis) and further in view of Furlong (US 20170336832 A1) (hereinafter Jakobsson).
Regarding claim 13, Lamb discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the computing device from a sensor associated with the plurality of first sensor messages (para 34, magnetic field detector 404 detect strength, direction, magnetic field detector 404 comprises sensor, which changes value in proportion to a strengths, para 37, magnetic field detector 404 increase as magnetic field strengths increases as magnet 108 is moved closer to sensor 110, para 49, magnetic field detector 404 detect a weak or non-existent magnetic field strengths, due to magnet 108 is positioned a relatively far distance from sensor 110 (i.e. due to reduction in strength for far position)), and
sending, from the computing device to the user device based on determining the reduction in the strength of the magnetic field, a fourth message indicating a false alarm condition (para 74, If the signal from magnetic field detector 404 is greater than a predetermined value, generates an alarm signal, para 61, If, however, a comparison of one or more readings from magnetic field detector 404 against alarm threshold value indicates that magnetic field threshold has decreased below the alarm threshold value, then generates an alarm signal, para 11, generating an alarm signal if any of the electronic signals are less than first threshold or greater than the second threshold, para 41, alarm to monitor information provided by magnetic field detector 404 for changes in one or more states, physical conditions, attributes, status, or parameters).
Lamb and Hollis fails to disclose prior to causing setting of the modified threshold, a third message indicating an additional measured strength of the magnetic field; determining, by the computing device, that the additional measured strength of the magnetic field does not satisfy the original threshold.
Furlong teaches prior to causing setting of the modified threshold, a third message indicating an additional measured strength of the magnetic field; determining, by the computing device, that the additional measured strength of the magnetic field does not satisfy the original threshold (para 16, The threshold may be set initially for a first magnetic field strength and magnetic field strength change due to position change, para 19, threshold adaptation 108 decreases its output over time, and adjust to a change in the function if the field strength of magnet 102 has been altered )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of detecting events based on a pattern of past monitoring activity disclosed by Lamb and Hollis to activate system for detecting the motion or displacement of a specific object that a sensor is attached as taught by Furlong to use sensor that outputs a comparison threshold signal based on peak detecting an output of the sensor using a long term adjustment and resetting the long term adjustment to a current output of the sensor in response to a short term adjustment and a switch electronic stage coupled to sensor and to the adaptation electronic stage that switches to output a logic active value in response to the output of the sensor exceeding the comparison threshold output [Furlong, para 7].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mirza Alam whose telephone number is (469) 295-9286. The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-6:00PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for Published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIRZA F ALAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights