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
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of Hess et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,713,931).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 1 and 2 of Hess disclose a portable alarm system including a base unit having a processor electrically connected to a wireless transceiver, the base unit receiving wireless alarm signals from first and second physically separated sensors; the processor being selectively programmed by a user to communicate a wireless signal to a monitoring station in response to a wireless signal from the first sensor and not communicate a wireless signal to the monitoring station in response to a wireless signal from the second sensor; and instead causing a wireless communication to be sent to a mobile electronic device in response to the wireless signal from the second sensor. Hess further recites activating a cellular modem and communicating with the monitoring station through the cellular modem in response to the first sensor.
It would have been obvious that the cellular modem used by Hess to communicate with the monitoring station is part of the base unit communication hardware and that the selectively programmed sensor-specific response may include communicating to the monitoring station via the cellular modem for one sensor while communicating to a mobile electronic device for another sensor. The presently claimed subject matter merely recasts the same sensor-specific routing/notification functionality in broader form and does not define a patentably distinct invention over claims 1 and 2 of Hess.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohn et al. (US 2010/0277315 A1) in view of Jacob et al. (US 2014/0201315 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cohn teaches a portable alarm system comprising a base unit having a processor connected to a cellular modem and a wireless transceiver, because Cohn teaches an SMA controller/base unit having “a processor 210” coupled to a “cellular transceiver 240,” “WIFI transceiver 235,” broadband connection, and memory (paras 0051-0055; Fig. 2). Cohn further teaches that the SMA controller bridges the sensor network to broadband and cellular networks and carries “alarm and activity events to servers in the operator domain for processing” (para 0056).
Cohn teaches receiving, by the base unit, alarm signals from a first sensor and a second sensor, at least one of the first sensor and the second sensor being physically separated from the base unit, because Cohn teaches RF/wireless sensors including “door or window sensors, motion detectors, smoke detectors, glass break detectors, inertial detectors, water detectors, carbon dioxide detectors, and key fob devices,” where the SMA controller reacts to state changes of these detectors (para 0033). Cohn also teaches that a user can search for activated sensors, display discovered sensors, edit sensor-zone information, and store sensor-zone information in local memory (paras 0068-0070; Fig. 6).
Cohn teaches the processor being selectively programmed by a user, because Cohn teaches that the SMA controller has a configurable architecture that allows a user to adapt the system to the user’s specific needs and stores configuration information for security sensors, monitoring devices, and automation devices (paras 0008-0009). Cohn further teaches that a user can edit sensor-zone information, including zone name and zone function, and that the zone function “determines behavior of the Zone” (paras 0071-0073).
Cohn teaches sending a signal to a monitoring station via the cellular modem in response to an alarm signal from the first sensor, because Cohn teaches that external servers provide a connection to a “traditional Security central station,” which can contact authorities when an alarm condition is detected by the SMA controller (para 0030). Cohn further teaches that alarm events are processed by servers and sent to central monitoring station 190 through telephony server 180 (paras 0040-0042). Cohn also teaches cellular communication between the SMA controller and server, including that the cellular channel handles “all non-alarm and alarm events” when used (para 0047).
Cohn teaches not sending a signal to the monitoring station in response to an alarm signal from the second sensor, because Cohn teaches user-selectable zone functions that alter how the security system acts and reacts to signals from sensors. In particular, Cohn teaches a “Perimeter” zone that will “Generate an alarm immediately if tripped while the system is armed,” while a “24-Hour Inform” zone “Will never generate an alarm, even if the system is armed” (paras 0073-0074; Table 1). Thus, Cohn teaches configuring different sensors/zones to cause different alarm behavior, including one sensor/zone that generates an alarm and another sensor/zone that does not generate an alarm.
Cohn teaches sending a signal to a mobile electronic device in response to the second sensor, because Cohn teaches that home monitoring provides alerts and associated data to a user, including to “a mobile device” (para 0005). Cohn also teaches that the servers automatically provide information to a user via “remote devices such as mobile phones, computers, and pagers” (para 0030), and that the notification module determines “if and how a user should be notified of events,” including by “telephone call, electronic mail, text message, page, and the like” based on the user’s configuration (para 0048).
To the extent Cohn does not expressly state that a particular second sensor is programmed to send a notification to a mobile electronic device while not sending a signal to the monitoring station, Jacob teaches this feature. Jacob teaches receiving data listing events detected by sensors that trigger a notification report, receiving data listing remote devices to which the notification report is transmitted, receiving notification rules, determining whether sensor event data corresponds to a triggering event, generating a notification report, and transmitting the notification report to remote devices (paras 0008-0010). Jacob further teaches that a user may set events that trigger notifications and set notification rules using a touchscreen, smartphone, tablet, laptop, or web interface (para 0012). Jacob also teaches different notification recipients for different detected events, such as a fire notification being sent broadly while an opened garage door notification is sent only to a next-door neighbor (para 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cohn’s user-configurable SMA controller with Jacob’s event-specific notification rules so that different sensors or sensor events cause different programmed communication actions, including reporting one sensor alarm to a monitoring station while sending another sensor event notification to a mobile electronic device without generating a monitoring-station alarm. The motivation would have been to provide user-customized alarm and notification handling, reduce unnecessary central-station reporting for lower-priority events, and direct selected sensor events to appropriate user-designated recipients, as expressly contemplated by Cohn’s configurable zone behavior and Jacob’s user-defined event notification rules.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang et al (US 2019/0182792) paragraph 0006, 0028 and 0081-0082
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached on 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights