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
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/9/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 - 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 10 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,333,923 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims at issue are entirely anticipated by those of U.S. Patent 12,333,923 B2 as set forth below.
Present Claimed Invention (Claim 1)
U.S. Patent US 12,333,923 B2 (Claim 1)
Claim Mapping
A system for monitoring a selected area, comprising: an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); one or more sensors configured to monitor the selected area for an anomaly,
A system for monitoring a selected area, comprising: an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); one or more sensors configured to monitor the selected area for an anomaly,
The limitations of the present claimed invention and U.S. Patent US 12,333,923 B2 are substantially identical.
wherein the selected area includes one or more alarm zones defined by a user as predetermined areas within the selected area and wherein at least one of the one or more alarm zones includes one or more sub-zones each having a level of response different from one another depending upon a sensitivity assigned to the one or more sub-zones;
wherein the selected area includes one or more alarm zones defined by a user as predetermined areas within the selected area and wherein at least one of the one or more alarm zones includes one or more sub-zones each having a level of response different from one another depending upon a sensitivity assigned to the one or more sub-zones;
The limitations of the present claimed invention and U.S. Patent US 12,333,923 B2 are substantially identical.
a processor in communication with the one or more sensors and with the UAV, wherein the processor is programmed to control the UAV to follow a flight corridor in each of the one or more sub-zones based on a site-specific constraint in each of the one or more sub-zones,
a processor in communication with the one or more sensors and with the UAV wherein the processor is programmed to control the UAV to follow a flight corridor in each of the one or more sub-zones based on a site-specific constraint in each of the one or more sub-zones,
The limitations of the present claimed invention and U.S. Patent US 12,333,923 B2 are substantially identical.
wherein the processor is programmed to determine an alternative flight path of the UAV upon receiving an alert from the one or more sensors such that the alternative flight path deviates from a predetermined flight path of the UAV to the alternative flight path within a vicinity of the anomaly,
wherein the processor is programmed to determine an alternative flight path of the UAV upon receiving an alert from the one or more sensors such that the alternative flight path deviates from a predetermined flight path of the UAV to the alternative flight path within a vicinity of the anomaly,
The limitations of the present claimed invention and U.S. Patent US 12,333,923 B2 are substantially identical.
wherein the processor is further programmed to provide a display to the user with a specified alarm zone indicated within which the anomaly is detected.
wherein the processor is further programmed to provide a display to the user with a specified alarm zone indicated within which the anomaly is detected,
The limitations of the present claimed invention and U.S. Patent US 12,333,923 B2 are substantially identical.
N/A
wherein the processor is further programmed to provide upon the display one or more waypoints of the alternative flight path marked and one or more points of interest in proximity to the anomaly identified for orienting the user,
The present claimed invention does not appear to include the limitation(s) present in corresponding Claim 1 of U.S. Patent US 12,333,923 B2.
N/A
And wherein the processor is further programmed to initiate the alternative flight path upon receiving an approval from the user to alter the predetermined flight path to the alternative flight path for the UAV.
The present claimed invention does not appear to include the limitation(s) present in corresponding Claim 1 of U.S. Patent US 12,333,923 B2.
As set forth above, the present claimed invention would have been entirely anticipated by US Patent US 12,333,923 B2, the latter including limitations not present in the present claimed invention, however otherwise anticipating each present limitation substantially verbatim. Independent Claim 5 recites a method embodiment of the system set forth in Claim 1 of each of the present claimed invention and U.S. Patent US 12,333,923 B2, and similarly maps to Independent Claim 5 of U.S. Patent US 12,333,923 B2.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marr (US 2017/0115667 A1) in view of DeVries (US 2019/0285748 A1) and Chambers (US 2017/0337827 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Marr discloses: A system for monitoring a selected area, comprising: (Marr discloses in at least Paragraphs 0006 & 0061 a security response system, including a security system generating alerts, and a UAV dispatch system configured to respond to said alerts [i.e. a system for monitoring a selected area])
an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); (Marr discloses in at least Paragraphs 0061 & 0062 a UAV dispatch system, wherein the UAVs are unmanned autonomous or semi-autonomous aerial vehicles configured to follow a navigable path in response to an alert. At least Paragraphs 0070 & 0071 of Marr disclose wherein the UAV may take the form of a rotorcraft such as a helicopter or multirotor, a fixed-wing aircraft, or other embodiments)
one or more sensors configured to monitor the selected area for an anomaly, (Marr discloses in at least Paragraphs 0084 & 0085 wherein the security system may include a plurality of sensor units [i.e. one or more sensors] for monitoring physical aspects of a premises, the sensor units including, in an example, infrared sensors for detecting persons in an environment [i.e. configured to monitor the selected area for an anomaly])
a processor in communication with the one or more sensors and with the UAV, wherein the processor is programmed to control the UAV (Marr discloses in at least Paragraphs 0026 – 0030 & 0119 wherein the system may include a controller configured to receive event location data generated by the one or more sensors, and output commands to a UAV flight control system, the control system including a processor, such as a microcontroller configured to execute computer-readable program instructions [i.e. a processor in communication with the one or more sensors and with the UAV])
wherein the processor is programmed to determine an alternative flight path of the UAV upon receiving an alert from the one or more sensors such that the alternative flight path deviates from a predetermined flight path of the UAV to the alternative flight path within a vicinity of the anomaly, and (Marr discloses in at least Paragraphs 0047 & 0048 wherein based on the detection of an event by the security system, a flight plan may be determined that directs the UAV to an area proximate to the detected event location, said flight plan being subsequently output to the UAV to cause the UAV to navigate to said location [i.e. wherein the processor is programmed to determine an alternative flight path of the UAV upon receiving an alert from the one or more sensors]. At least Paragraphs 0068 & 0069 of Marr further disclose wherein the flight path may be initiated from a launch or loiter position of the UAV [i.e. the alternative flight path deviates from a predetermined flight path of the UAV to the alternative flight path within a vicinity of the anomaly])
Marr however appears to be silent regarding:
wherein the selected area includes one or more alarm zones defined by a user as predetermined areas within the selected area and
wherein at least one of the one or more alarm zones includes one or more sub-zones each having a level of response different from one another depending upon a sensitivity assigned to the one or more sub-zones;
Wherein the UAV is controlled to follow a flight corridor in each of the one or more sub-zones based on a site-specific constraint in each of the one or more sub-zones,
wherein the processor is further programmed to provide a display to the user with a specified alarm zone indicated within which the anomaly is detected.
However DeVries teaches wherein an area may be monitored for intrusions, including subzones in which a higher intensity response may be issued through a display based on intrusion into said subzones.
wherein the selected area includes one or more alarm zones defined by a user as predetermined areas within the selected area and (However DeVries teaches in at least Paragraphs 0026 & 0027 wherein an intruder detection system may be configured to monitor an area surrounding or adjacent to a building, including one or more landmarks configured and installed to operate with the intruder detection system as taught in at least Paragraphs 0028 & 0030. At least Paragraph 0045 of DeVries teaches wherein a virtual fence may be provided for the intruder detection system, with at least Paragraphs 0110 & 0111 of DeVries teaching wherein subzones within the monitored area may be identified as higher value based on their proximity to landmarks, such as a building [i.e. wherein the selected area includes one or more alarm zones defined by a user as predetermined areas within the selected area])
wherein at least one of the one or more alarm zones includes one or more sub-zones each having a level of response different from one another depending upon a sensitivity assigned to the one or more sub-zones; (However DeVries teaches in at least Paragraphs 0107 - 0111 wherein an area being monitored for intrusions [i.e. an alarm area] may include subzones of higher value, such as areas closer to a building, or a playground during recess [i.e. one or more sub-zones with an assigned sensitivity]. The intensity of an alert provided to security personnel [i.e. the level of response] may be based on the value [i.e. sensitivity] of the subzone, such that an alert presented only visually may be changed to a flashing identifier and audible alert [i.e. a different response] as an intruder approaches and enters the higher value subzone)
wherein the processor is further programmed to provide a display to the user with a specified alarm zone indicated within which the anomaly is detected. (However DeVries teaches in at least Paragraphs 0109 – 0111 wherein the identification system for intrusion detection may be coupled to a display and configured to generate a visual alert to a user when an intrusion is detected, including a bounding box and/or flashing identifier, with the intensity varying based on the importance of the subzone [i.e. provide a display to the user with a specified alarm zone indicated within which the anomaly is detected])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Marr by incorporating the use of subzones with different levels of alerting in response to detected intrusion as taught by DeVries.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by DeVries in at least Paragraphs 0110 & 0111, and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, intrusion into subzones of a monitored area deemed to have a higher value may be notified with a higher priority than less valuable zones, improving the security of critical zones in the observed area, and thus improving the operation of the security system as a whole.
However Chambers teaches wherein a UAV travelling from an origin to a destination may be configured to follow flight corridors, the flight corridor path being selected based on costs associated with the traversal area.
Wherein the UAV is controlled to follow a flight corridor in each of the one or more sub-zones based on a site-specific constraint in each of the one or more sub-zones, (However Chambers teaches in at least Paragraphs 0047 & 0048 wherein a UAV may travel between locations via flight corridors within an area of operation [i.e. the UAV is controlled to follow a flight corridor in each of the one or more sub-zones], taking into account information about each flight corridor such as local weather and air traffic conditions. At least Paragraph 0054 of Chambers further teaches wherein flight corridor(s) may be assigned traversal costs, based on factors such as wind speed, weather, elevation, flight corridor length, and regulatory limits to flight paths, such as if the flight corridor is within an area [i.e. sub-zone] designated as a no-fly zone, the flight corridor routing path being determined based on said costs [i.e. the flight corridors are followed based on a site-specific constraint in each of the one or more sub-zones])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Marr by incorporating the use of flight corridors to traverse an area from origin to destination as taught by Chambers.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Chambers in at least Paragraph 0048, the use of flight corridors enables the UAV to travel safely and efficiently between locations, improving the response of a UAV to a specific location.
Regarding Claim 3:
The system of claim 1 wherein the one or more sensors comprise a radar system.
Marr does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more sensors comprise a radar system.
However DeVries teaches in at least Paragraphs 0065 & 0086 wherein the location of objects in an environment may be detected through the use of reflected electromagnetic waves, such as those from a microwave radar system [i.e. wherein the one or more sensors comprise a radar system].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Marr by incorporating the use of a radar detection system as taught by DeVries.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by DeVries in at least Paragraphs 0065 & 0086, locations and specific features of objects in the environment may be detected, improving the object detection security system.
Regarding Claim 5:
Marr discloses: A method of monitoring a selected area, comprising: (Marr discloses in at least Paragraph 0060 a security response method, including a security system generating alerts, and a UAV dispatch system configured to respond to said alerts [i.e. a method for monitoring a selected area])
monitoring the selected area via one or more sensors configured to monitor the selected area, (Marr discloses in at least Paragraphs 0084 & 0085 wherein the security system may include a plurality of sensor units [i.e. one or more sensors] for monitoring physical aspects of a premises, the sensor units including, in an example, infrared sensors for detecting persons in an environment [i.e. configured to monitor the selected area])
transmitting an alarm signal to a processor in communication with the one or more sensors upon detecting an anomaly in the selected area, wherein the processor is programmed to control the UAV (Marr discloses in at least Paragraphs 0026 – 0030 & 0119 wherein the system may include a controller configured to receive event location data generated by the one or more sensors [i.e. transmitting an alarm signal to a processor in communication with the one or more sensors upon detecting an anomaly in the selected area], and output commands to a UAV flight control system, the control system including a processor, such as a microcontroller configured to execute computer-readable program instructions [i.e. wherein the processor is programmed to control the UAV])
determining an alternative flight path of a UAV which deviates from a predetermined flight path of the UAV such that the alternative flight path is within a vicinity of the anomaly; and (Marr discloses in at least Paragraphs 0047 & 0048 wherein based on the detection of an event by the security system, a flight plan may be determined that directs the UAV to an area proximate to the detected event location, said flight plan being subsequently output to the UAV to cause the UAV to navigate to said location [i.e. wherein the processor is programmed to determine an alternative flight path of the UAV upon receiving an alert from the one or more sensors]. At least Paragraphs 0068 & 0069 of Marr further disclose wherein the flight path may be initiated from a launch or loiter position of the UAV [i.e. the alternative flight path deviates from a predetermined flight path of the UAV to the alternative flight path within a vicinity of the anomaly])
Marr however appears to be silent regarding:
wherein the selected area includes one or more alarm zones defined by a user as predetermined areas within the selected area and
wherein at least one of the one or more alarm zones includes one or more sub-zones each having a level of response different from one another depending upon a sensitivity assigned to the one or more sub-zones;
to follow a flight corridor in each of the one or more sub-zones based on a site-specific constraint in each of the one or more sub-zones;
displaying to a user a specified alarm zone indicated within which the anomaly is detected.
However DeVries teaches wherein an area may be monitored for intrusions, including subzones in which a higher intensity response may be issued through a display based on intrusion into said subzones.
wherein the selected area includes one or more alarm zones defined by a user as predetermined areas within the selected area and (However DeVries teaches in at least Paragraphs 0026 & 0027 wherein an intruder detection system may be configured to monitor an area surrounding or adjacent to a building, including one or more landmarks configured and installed to operate with the intruder detection system as taught in at least Paragraphs 0028 & 0030. At least Paragraph 0045 of DeVries teaches wherein a virtual fence may be provided for the intruder detection system, with at least Paragraphs 0110 & 0111 of DeVries teaching wherein subzones within the monitored area may be identified as higher value based on their proximity to landmarks, such as a building [i.e. wherein the selected area includes one or more alarm zones defined by a user as predetermined areas within the selected area])
wherein at least one of the one or more alarm zones includes one or more sub-zones each having a level of response different from one another depending upon a sensitivity assigned to the one or more sub-zones; (However DeVries teaches in at least Paragraphs 0107 - 0111 wherein an area being monitored for intrusions [i.e. an alarm area] may include subzones of higher value, such as areas closer to a building, or a playground during recess [i.e. one or more sub-zones with an assigned sensitivity]. The intensity of an alert provided to security personnel [i.e. the level of response] may be based on the value [i.e. sensitivity] of the subzone, such that an alert presented only visually may be changed to a flashing identifier and audible alert [i.e. a different response] as an intruder approaches and enters the higher value subzone)
displaying to a user a specified alarm zone indicated within which the anomaly is detected. (However DeVries teaches in at least Paragraphs 0109 – 0111 wherein the identification system for intrusion detection may be coupled to a display and configured to generate a visual alert to a user when an intrusion is detected, including a bounding box and/or flashing identifier, with the intensity varying based on the importance of the subzone [i.e. provide a display to the user with a specified alarm zone indicated within which the anomaly is detected])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Marr by incorporating the use of subzones with different levels of alerting in response to detected intrusion as taught by DeVries.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by DeVries in at least Paragraphs 0110 & 0111, and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, intrusion into subzones of a monitored area deemed to have a higher value may be notified with a higher priority than less valuable zones, improving the security of critical zones in the observed area, and thus improving the operation of the security system as a whole.
However Chambers teaches wherein a UAV travelling from an origin to a destination may be configured to follow flight corridors, the flight corridor path being selected based on costs associated with the traversal area.
to follow a flight corridor in each of the one or more sub-zones based on a site-specific constraint in each of the one or more sub-zones; (However Chambers teaches in at least Paragraphs 0047 & 0048 wherein a UAV may travel between locations via flight corridors within an area of operation [i.e. the UAV is controlled to follow a flight corridor in each of the one or more sub-zones], taking into account information about each flight corridor such as local weather and air traffic conditions. At least Paragraph 0054 of Chambers further teaches wherein flight corridor(s) may be assigned traversal costs, based on factors such as wind speed, weather, elevation, flight corridor length, and regulatory limits to flight paths, such as if the flight corridor is within an area designated as a no-fly zone, the flight corridor routing path being determined based on said costs [i.e. the flight corridors are followed based on a site-specific constraint in each of the one or more sub-zones])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Marr by incorporating the use of flight corridors to traverse an area from origin to destination as taught by Chambers.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Chambers in at least Paragraph 0048, the use of flight corridors enables the UAV to travel safely and efficiently between locations, improving the response of a UAV to a specific location.
Regarding Claim 6:
The method of claim 5 wherein monitoring the selected area comprises detecting via a radar system.
Marr does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more sensors comprise a radar system.
However DeVries teaches in at least Paragraphs 0065 & 0086 wherein the location of objects in an environment may be detected through the use of reflected electromagnetic waves, such as those from a microwave radar system [i.e. wherein the one or more sensors comprise a radar system].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Marr by incorporating the use of a radar detection system as taught by DeVries.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by DeVries in at least Paragraphs 0065 & 0086, locations and specific features of objects in the environment may be detected, improving the object detection security system.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marr (US 2017/0115667 A1) in view of DeVries (US 2019/0285748 A1) and Chambers (US 2017/0337827 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller (US 2017/0283090 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The system of claim 1 further comprising a reconfigurable power station (RPS) configured to replace a power supply from the UAV.
Marr does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the system further includes a reconfigurable power station (RPS) configured to replace a power supply from the UAV.
However Miller teaches in at least Paragraphs 0029 and 0030 a UAV battery swapping assembly [i.e. a reconfigurable power station] autonomously replacing the battery in a UAV via a UAV ground station [i.e. configured to replace a power supply from the UAV].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Marr by incorporating the autonomous replacement of batteries in a UAV system as taught by Miller.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Miller in at least Paragraph 0033, the UAV may be enabled to immediately perform another flight without waiting for the UAV to charge, improving the security monitoring system by increasing the uptime of UAVs through the reduction of charge time.
Claim(s) 4 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marr (US 2017/0115667 A1) in view of DeVries (US 2019/0285748 A1) and Chambers (US 2017/0337827 A1) as applied to claims 1 & 5 above, and further in view of Shan (US 2012/0133378 A1).
Regarding Claim 4:
The system of claim 1 wherein the one or more sensors comprise an electric fence.
Marr does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more sensors comprise an electric fence.
However Shan teaches in at least Paragraph 0006 an electric security fence, configured to generate and receive a reflected electrical signal, and determine the location of a disturbance area indicative of an intrusion point as taught in at least Paragraph 0016. At least Paragraph 0035 of Shan discloses wherein based on the detection and locating of an intrusion, a trigger signal is sent to activate monitoring devices in the vicinity of the intrusion, such as a microphone or video camera [i.e. the one or more sensors comprise an electric fence].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Marr by incorporating the use of an electric fence to monitor a selected area and alert intrusions as taught by Shan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shan in at least Paragraphs 0016 & 0036, an intrusion to a zone may be reliably detected and responded to through the reflection of energy signatures, improving the intrusion detection in a specified zone.
Regarding Claim 7:
The method of claim 5 wherein monitoring the selected area comprises detecting via an electric fence.
Marr does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more sensors comprise an electric fence.
However Shan teaches in at least Paragraph 0006 an electric security fence, configured to generate and receive a reflected electrical signal, and determine the location of a disturbance area indicative of an intrusion point as taught in at least Paragraph 0016. At least Paragraph 0035 of Shan discloses wherein based on the detection and locating of an intrusion, a trigger signal is sent to activate monitoring devices in the vicinity of the intrusion, such as a microphone or video camera [i.e. the one or more sensors comprise an electric fence].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Marr by incorporating the use of an electric fence to monitor a selected area and alert intrusions as taught by Shan.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shan in at least Paragraphs 0016 & 0036, an intrusion to a zone may be reliably detected and responded to through the reflection of energy signatures, improving the intrusion detection in a specified zone.
Claim(s) 8 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marr (US 2017/0115667 A1) in view of DeVries (US 2019/0285748 A1) and Chambers (US 2017/0337827 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Bill (US 2017/0346623 A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
The method of claim 5 where transmitting an alarm signal to the processor further comprises authenticating the one or more sensors with a server in communication with the one or more sensors.
Marr does not appear to specifically disclose authenticating the one or more sensors with a server in communication with the one or more sensors.
However Bill teaches in at least Paragraph 0070 securing a sensor network, including by authentication of the data. At least Paragraphs 0103 & 0104 further teach wherein the authentication is configured to take place on wireless nodes, which may include a wireless interface, processor, and memory for storing data [i.e. a server] as taught in at least Paragraph 0068 of Bill [i.e. authenticating the one or more sensors with a server in communication with the one or more sensors].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Marr by incorporating the authentication and securing of individual sensors in a sensor network as taught by Bill.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Bill in at least Column 5 Lines 20 - 39, authenticating sensors ensures the confidentiality and integrity of data on the sensor network, improving the system by reducing the vulnerabilities present to potential attackers without reducing the availability of data on the network.
Regarding Claim 9:
The method of claim 8 further comprising determining via a server a location of the alarm signal.
Marr discloses in at least Paragraphs 0089 & 0120 wherein the control management system, which may include a cloud server, is configured to determine event location data from the event messages received [i.e. determining via a server a location of the alarm signal].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marr (US 2017/0115667 A1) in view of DeVries (US 2019/0285748 A1), Chambers (US 2017/0337827 A1), and Bill (US 2017/0346623 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Flinsenberg (US 2015/0116112 A1).
Regarding Claim 10:
The method of claim 9 further comprising determining via the server whether a device reporting the alarm signal has been added as a trigger within the selected area.
Marr does not appear to specifically disclose determining via the server whether a device reporting the alarm signal has been added as a trigger within the selected area.
However Flinsenberg teaches in at least Paragraphs 0013 & 0017 wherein the location of a mobile alert generation device is tracked for entering and exiting alert areas, with alerts being issued for the associated room or area from which the alert originates, which may be implemented via a server as taught in at least Paragraph 0031 [i.e. determining via the server whether a device reporting the alarm signal has been added as a trigger within the selected area].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Marr by incorporating the determination of if an alarm signal device has been added to an alert area as taught by Flinsenberg.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Flinsenberg in at least Paragraphs 0014 & 0074, determining if an alerting device is added to an area enables the identification of the location of an alert when one is present, improving the response to an alert event by providing a current location as taught in at least Paragraph 0011 of Flinsenberg.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Xu (US 11,482,119 B2): Xu recites a method for controlling or limiting the flight of an aerial vehicle in an environment, including the use of specified flight restriction zones in which the flight of a UAV is modified. This may include limiting the altitude of flight of a UAV, as well as limiting the speed of the UAV, or limiting the UAV to specified flight corridors. The zones in which this takes place may be defined based on proximity to a target area.
Deyle (US 2020/0053325 A1): Deyle recites a robotic system, including the user configuration of security policies for an area using a security interface. Areas may be selected for configuring security policies in, and different security policies for a robot, such as different actions to take in the event of a security breach, may be configured for each area.
Zhang (US 2016/0327956 A1): Zhang recites a system for controlling unmanned aerial vehicle altitudes based on restrictions within zones, as well as jurisdictional rules. Altitude requirements may be received for a geographic area, and control signals may be output to comply with the received requirements or restrictions, which may be modified based on an elevation of the ground underneath the UAV.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights