Jump to content

Patent Application 18512004 - Mobile Control Unit Facility Management System - Rejection

From WikiPatents

Patent Application 18512004 - Mobile Control Unit Facility Management System

Title: Mobile Control Unit, Facility Management System, Mobile Unit Control System, Facility Management Method, and Mobile Unit Control Method

Application Information

  • Invention Title: Mobile Control Unit, Facility Management System, Mobile Unit Control System, Facility Management Method, and Mobile Unit Control Method
  • Application Number: 18512004
  • Submission Date: 2025-05-21T00:00:00.000Z
  • Effective Filing Date: 2023-11-16T00:00:00.000Z
  • Filing Date: 2023-11-16T00:00:00.000Z
  • National Class: 701
  • National Sub-Class: 537000
  • Examiner Employee Number: 88617
  • Art Unit: 3666
  • Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

  • 102 Rejections: 1
  • 103 Rejections: 3

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text


    DETAILED ACTION

Notice of Pre-AIA  or AIA  Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .

Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, and 15-23 of US Application No. 18/512,004, filed on 16 November 2023, are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 8, 11, and 15, canceled claims 3, 9, and 12-14, and added claims 16-23 via preliminary amendment.

Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 16 November 2023 and 23 April 2025 have been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 for each IDS is enclosed herewith.

Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. 
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.

The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words.  A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).

Claim Objections
Claim1 is objected to because of the following informalities:

Claim 1 recites “plurality of premises premises when an alarm signal is received” but should recite – plurality of premises  –.  

Appropriate correction is required.

Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.  The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. 
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A)	the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; 
(B)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and 
(C)	the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. 
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.  Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “central monitoring system adapted to communicate . . . and adapted to monitor”, “mobile module configured to be dispatched”, “mobile control unit” in claim 1; “security monitoring system adapted to monitor” (claim 5); “facility system adapted to monitor”, “security mobile module configured to monitor”, “building services mobile module configured to monitor” (claim 8); “security mobile module configured to monitor”, “building services mobile module configured to monitor (claim 11); “main control unit adapted to monitor . . . adapted to be in communication with”, “central monitoring system adapted to communicate with a facility system”, “mobile control unit is adapted to move” (claim 15); “security mobile module configured to monitor”, “building services mobile module configured to monitor” (claim 23).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. 

If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:  (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA  to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.  

The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –

(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.


Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 16-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kerzner et al. (US 2021/0255636 A1, “Kerzner”).

Regarding claim 1, Kerzner discloses a mobile docking station and teaches:
a central monitoring system (monitoring application server 460, central alarm server 470, robotic devices 490, user device 450, mobile device 440 – see at least Fig. 4) adapted to communicate with at least one of a facility system of each of the plurality of premises (control unit 410 communicating with sensors 420, automation 422, thermal camera 430, and thermostat 434 via wired or wireless communication links 424, 426, 428, 432 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0138]) and adapted to monitor the at least one facility system to receive an alarm signal from the at least one facility system (network module 414 may transmit alarm data over a wireless data channel – see at least ¶ [0110]),
wherein the mobile control unit is adapted to move to one of the plurality of premises when alerted by the facility system of the one of the plurality of premises (which devices to assign to property to aid in information requests is determined – see at least ¶ [0068]; aid information may be sent from an automated monitoring agent – see at least ¶ [0072]; mobile docking station 202 together with docking station 204a and drones 206a, 206b are deployed – see at least ¶ [0073]), wherein the mobile control unit comprises a mobile module configured to be dispatched from the mobile control unit and move to one of the plurality of premises (mobile docking station 202 may dispatch mobile docking station 204 having aerial devices 206, such that the aerial devices can reach the property – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0065], [0074]-[0077]). 

Regarding claim 2, Kerzner further teaches: 
wherein the mobile control unit comprises a vehicular unit (mobile docking station 106 may be an autonomously driven road-going car – see at least ¶ [0063]).  

Regarding claim 5, Kerzner further teaches: 
wherein the central monitoring system comprises a security monitoring system adapted to monitor at least one of a security system of the facility system or a building services monitoring system adapted to monitor the building services systems of the facility system (control unit 410 may communicate with sensors 420, automation 422, thermal camera 430, and thermostat 434 via wired or wireless communication links 424, 426, 428, 432 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0138]).  

Regarding claim 6, Kerzner further teaches:
wherein communication between the central monitoring system and facility system is via at least one of a wide area network or a wireless local area network (control unit 410 may communicate with sensors 420, automation 422, thermal camera 430, and thermostat 434 via wired or wireless communication links 424, 426, 428, 432 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0138]; network module 414 may enable control unit 410 to communicate over a local area network – see at least ¶ [0110]).  

Regarding claim 7, Kerzner further teaches:
wherein the mobile control unit is adapted to patrol at least one of the plurality of premises (one or more devices may be deployed for autonomous patrol – see at least ¶ [0082]).  

Regarding claim 8, Kerzner discloses a mobile docking station and teaches:
a mobile control unit (mobile docking station 106 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0033]; mobile docking station 202 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0065]); and 
a plurality of facility systems, each facility system adapted to monitor one of the plurality of premises (sensors 420, automation 422, thermostat 434, thermal camera 430 connected to control unit 410 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0111]-[0122]);
wherein each of the facility system comprises: at least one of a security system and a building services system, wherein the security system comprises a security mobile module configured to monitor the premises (robotic devices 490 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0124]-[0130]; robotic devices 490 may include one or more cameras, one or more motion sensors, one or more microphones, one or more biometric data collection tools, one or more temperature sensors, one or more humidity sensors, one or more air flow sensors, and/or any other types of sensors that may be useful in capturing monitoring data related to the property – see at least ¶ [0126]) and the building services system comprises a building services mobile module configured to monitor the building services in the premise (robotic devices 490 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0124]-[0130]; robotic devices 490 may include one or more cameras, one or more motion sensors, one or more microphones, one or more biometric data collection tools, one or more temperature sensors, one or more humidity sensors, one or more air flow sensors, and/or any other types of sensors that may be useful in capturing monitoring data related to the property – see at least ¶ [0126]).

Regarding claim 11, Kerzner discloses a mobile docking station and teaches:
monitoring at least one of the facility systems (monitoring application server 460 provides monitoring services by communicating with control unit 410 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0140]), wherein each of the facility system comprising at least one of a security system and a building services system (control unit 410 communicating with sensors 420, automation 422, thermal camera 430, and thermostat 434 via wired or wireless communication links 424, 426, 428, 432 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0138]), wherein the security system comprises a security mobile module configured to monitor the premises (robotic devices 490 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0124]-[0130]; robotic devices 490 may include one or more cameras, one or more motion sensors, one or more microphones, one or more biometric data collection tools, one or more temperature sensors, one or more humidity sensors, one or more air flow sensors, and/or any other types of sensors that may be useful in capturing monitoring data related to the property – see at least ¶ [0126]) and the building services system comprises a building services mobile module configured to monitor the building services in the premises (robotic devices 490 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0124]-[0130]; robotic devices 490 may include one or more cameras, one or more motion sensors, one or more microphones, one or more biometric data collection tools, one or more temperature sensors, one or more humidity sensors, one or more air flow sensors, and/or any other types of sensors that may be useful in capturing monitoring data related to the property – see at least ¶ [0126]);
communicating between the central monitoring system of the mobile control unit and at least one of the facility systems of the plurality of premises (monitoring application server 460 provides monitoring services by communicating with control unit 410 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0140]); and 
moving the mobile control unit to the premise of the one of the facility systems when alerted by the one of the facility systems of the one of the plurality of premises (which devices to assign to property to aid in information requests is determined – see at least ¶ [0068]; aid information may be sent from an automated monitoring agent – see at least ¶ [0072]; mobile docking station 202 together with docking station 204a and drones 206a, 206b are deployed – see at least ¶ [0073]). 

Regarding claim 16, Kerzner further teaches:
wherein the mobile module is autonomous, wherein the mobile module is configured to automatically monitor and move toward the premises (drones may be autonomous – see at least ¶ [0035]; subsystems attached or within a device of the mobile docking station system may be autonomous – see at least ¶ [0064]; deployed aerial drones navigate to property and perform their assignment – see at least ¶ [0077]; assignments may include recording video of the property – see at least ¶ [0040], [0053]).  

Regarding claim 17, Kerzner further teaches:
wherein the mobile module comprises an image capturing device configured to capture images and/or video within the premises to be transmitted to the mobile control unit (deployed aerial drones navigate to property and perform their assignment – see at least ¶ [0077]; assignments may include recording video of the property – see at least ¶ [0040], [0053]).  

Regarding claim 18, Kerzner further teaches:
wherein the mobile module comprises an alarm device configured to emit a siren (robotic devices 490 may include output devices, such as speakers or any type of output device that allows the robotic device 490 to communicate information to a nearby user – see at least ¶ [0128]).  

Regarding claim 20, Kerzner further teaches:
wherein the mobile module is configured to detect motion within the premises (robotic devices 490 may include motion sensors – see at least ¶ [0126]).  

Regarding claim 21, Kerzner further teaches:
wherein the mobile module is configured to scan the premises and map surveillance route within the premises (robotic devices 490 navigation within the property using one or more cameras, one or more proximity sensors, one or more gyroscopes, one or more accelerometers, one or more magnetometers, a global positioning system (GPS) unit, an altimeter, one or more sonar or laser sensors, and/or any other types of sensors that aid in navigation about a space – see at least ¶ [0124]; robotic devices 490 may learn and store navigation patterns – see at least ¶ [0125]).  

Regarding claim 22, Kerzner further teaches:
wherein the mobile module is configured to navigate autonomously within the premises based on the surveillance route (robotic devices 490 may learn and store navigation patterns such that the robotic devices may automatically repeat navigation actions – see at least ¶ [0125]. 

Regarding claim 23, Kerzner further teaches:
further comprising the facility system, wherein the facility system comprises at least one of a security system and a building services system (sensors 420, automation 422, thermostat 434, thermal camera 430 connected to control unit 410 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0111]-[0122]), wherein the security system comprises a security mobile module configured to monitor the premises (robotic devices 490 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0124]-[0130]; robotic devices 490 may include one or more cameras, one or more motion sensors, one or more microphones, one or more biometric data collection tools, one or more temperature sensors, one or more humidity sensors, one or more air flow sensors, and/or any other types of sensors that may be useful in capturing monitoring data related to the property – see at least ¶ [0126]) and the building services system comprises a building services mobile module configured to monitor the building services in the premises (robotic devices 490 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0124]-[0130]; robotic devices 490 may include one or more cameras, one or more motion sensors, one or more microphones, one or more biometric data collection tools, one or more temperature sensors, one or more humidity sensors, one or more air flow sensors, and/or any other types of sensors that may be useful in capturing monitoring data related to the property – see at least ¶ [0126]).

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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerzner in view of Speasl et al. (US 2016/0364989 A1, “Speasl”).

Regarding claim 4, Kerzner fails to teach but Speasl discloses unmanned aerial vehicle management and teaches:
wherein the mobile control unit comprises a Global Positioning System device adapted to determine the location of the mobile control unit (GPS receiver on base module 105 – see at least Fig. 5 and ¶ [0047]).  

It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile docking station of Kerzner to provide a GPS adapted to determine location, as taught by Speasl, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would aid a UAV landing on the base device, i.e., mobile control unit (Speasl at ¶ [0047]).

Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerzner in view of Deyle et al. (US 2021/0048829 A1, “Deyle”).

 	Regarding claim 15, Kerzner discloses a mobile docking station and teaches:
a plurality of mobile control units (mobile docking station 202 and off-road mobile docking station 204 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0065]);
[ ], 
wherein each of the mobile control units comprising a central monitoring system adapted to communicate with a facility system of each of the plurality of premises, the central monitoring system adapted to monitor at least one of the facility systems to receive an alarm signal from the facility system (monitoring application server 460, central alarm server 470, robotic devices 490, user device 450, mobile device 440 – see at least Fig. 4; control unit 410 communicating with sensors 420, automation 422, thermal camera 430, and thermostat 434 via wired or wireless communication links 424, 426, 428, 432 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0138]; network module 414 may transmit alarm data over a wireless data channel – see at least ¶ [0110]), and 
wherein the mobile control unit is adapted to move to one of the plurality of premises when alerted by the facility system of the one of the plurality of premises when an alarm signal is received (mobile docking station 202 may be deployed in response to a received information request – see at least ¶ [0073]; information request may be associated with an alarm registered at property 110 – see at least ¶ [0036]), 
wherein the mobile control unit comprises a mobile module configured to be dispatched from the mobile control unit and move to one of the plurality of premises (mobile docking station 204 may dispatch aerial devices 206, such that the aerial devices can reach the property – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0065], [0074]-[0077]).

Kerzner fails to teach but Deyle discloses surveillance prevention by a mobile robot and teaches:
a main control unit adapted to monitor the location of the plurality of mobile control units, the main control unit adapted to be in communication with the plurality of mobile control units and controlling the plurality of mobile control units (one or more robots 100 – see at least ¶ [0044]; security interface couples with robot, e.g., via central system 210 – see at least Fig. 16 and ¶ [0200]; a user of the security interface may instruct the robot to perform a security operation – see at least ¶ [0200]; security interface is displayed to include a location of the robot – see at least ¶ [0200]; security interface can display updated location of the robot – see at least ¶ [0020]).

It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile docking station of Kerzner to provide monitor robot location, communicate with robots, and control the robots as taught by Deyle, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the a user to instruct the robot to perform particular desired actions (Deyle at ¶ [0200]).

Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerzner.

Regarding claim 19, Kerzner fails to explicitly teach the mobile module comprises a smoke detection device configured to detect smoke within the premises. 
However, Kerzner further discloses that robotic devices may include any type of output devices that allow the robotic devices 490 to communicate information to a nearby user. See ¶ [0128]. Kerzner further discloses a smoke detector on the property. See ¶ [0050].

Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile docking station of Kerzner to provide the mobile module with a smoke detector, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the mobile module to monitor property conditions to determine if a fire is still ablaze at the property (Kerzner at ¶ [0089]).

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.





/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666                                                                                                                                                                                                        


    
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
    


Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.