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 .
Claim status
Claims 21-43 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the false positive situation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
5. 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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(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-l.jsp.
6. Claims 21-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-9, 15-17 and 19-21 of US Patent No. 12,374,207. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “the sensed data collected over a time period”, “adjusting the amount of data from the second sensor stored in the elastic repository”, “adjusting the time period data from the second sensor is stored in the elastic repository”, “causing the elastic repository to store data from the second sensor until a predetermined event occurs”, “causing the elastic repository to store data from the second sensor until a predetermined message is received.”, “choosing the second sensor based on a logical distance from the first sensor”, “choosing the second sensor environmental sensors based on line-of-sight from the first sensor”, “determining the quiescent state based on the person's physical activity level.”, “the active emission sensor device is a radar device, Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) sensor, Radio-Frequency (RF) sensor, or Frequency-Modulated Continuous-Wave (FMCW) Radar sensor.”, “the false positive situation is identified using the map” and “transmitting the configuration specification the second sensor causes the second sensor to invoke a detection threshold condition.” are conventional prior art features and the use of such features in claims 1, 8-9, 15-17 and 19-21 of US Patent No. 12,374,207 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
7. Claims 21-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-9, 15-18 and 20 of US Patent No. 12,094,313. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “the sensed data collected over a time period”, “adjusting the amount of data from the second sensor stored in the elastic repository”, “adjusting the time period data from the second sensor is stored in the elastic repository”, “causing the elastic repository to store data from the second sensor until a predetermined event occurs”, “causing the elastic repository to store data from the second sensor until a predetermined message is received.”, “the false positive situation is identified by comparing data from multiple sensors in the plurality of sensors”, “first environmental sensor is an acoustic sensor, the method further comprising: identifying the false positive situation using a comparison of the sensed data with common acoustic signals in the environment” and “the false positive situation is identified using the map” are conventional prior art features and the use of such features in claims 1-5, 7-9, 15-18 and 20 of US Patent No. 12,094,313 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights