CARRIER CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2021

2020004460 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/744,611 01/12/2018 Anis Zribi 82039US02 (U300631US2) 1810
87059 7590 09/02/2021
Cantor Colburn LLP - Carrier
20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
EXAMINER
RUSHING, MARK S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte ANIS ZRIBI, TRAVIS SILVER, JONATHON HUGHES,
JOHN ANDRES, CHRIS ROVENSTINE, SEAN CURLEY, and
MICHAEL L. RICHARDS

Appeal 2020-004460
Application 15/744,611
Technology Center 2600

Before MARC S. HOFF, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4 and 6–17. Appeal Br. 16–18
(Claims App.). Claim 5 has been cancelled, and claims 18–20 have been
withdrawn from consideration. Id. at 16 and 18–19. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Carrier
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004460
Application 15/744,611

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter generally relates to a safety automation
system for an occupiable structure. Spec. ¶ 3. Hazard conditions, such as
those related to indications of fire, may be detected and cause action to
reduce risk and assist in home evacuation. Id. ¶ 5; Appeal Br. 3.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A home safety automation system comprising:
a computing management system including a computer
processor, and a computer readable storage medium configured
to run embedded software and cloud server software;
a detection device adapted to detect a hazard condition
and output an associated hazard condition detected signal to the
computing management system;
at least one ancillary alert device including lighting
configured to accept respective electrical command signals
from the computing management system associated with the
hazard condition detected signal to assist in home evacuation;
and
at least one condition deterrence device configured to
accept respective electrical command signals from the
computing management system associated with the hazard
condition detected signal and to control at least one appliance as
a result of the detected hazard condition to at least reduce risk
presented by the hazard condition and assist in home
evacuation, wherein the at least one appliance includes an
ingress/egress point of a home, and the at least one condition
deterrence device includes a lock configured to at least unlock
the ingress/egress point as directed by the computing
management system.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Dependent claims 2–4 and 6–17 each
incorporate the limitations of independent claim 1. Id. at 16–18.
Appeal 2020-004460
Application 15/744,611

3
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Walker US 7,391,319 B1 June 24, 2008
Fuller et al.
(“Fuller”)
US 2010/0149708 A1 June 17, 2010
Pillai et al.
(“Pillai”)
US 2014/0067130 A1 Mar. 6, 2014
Logue et al.
(“Logue”)
US 2015/0097689 A1 Apr. 9, 2015
Bartlett et al.
(“Bartlett”)
US 2015/0025659 A1 Jan. 11, 2015
Patrick et al.
(“Patrick”)
US 2015/0159401 A1 June 11, 2015
Holley et al.
(“Holley”)
US 2015/0163412 A1 June 11, 2015
Clifton et al.
(“Clifton”)
US 2015/0316285 A1 Nov. 5, 2015
Huang et al.
(“Huang”)
US 2016/0191270 A1 June 30, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Logue and Walker.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Logue, Walker, and Holley.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Logue, Walker, and Patrick.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Logue, Walker, and Bartlett.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Logue, Walker, Bartlett, and Huang.
Appeal 2020-004460
Application 15/744,611

4
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Logue, Walker, and Fuller.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Logue, Walker, and Clifton.
Claims 8 and 13–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combination of Logue, Walker, and Pillai.

OPINION
1. Claims 1–4
The Examiner finds claims 1 and 4 to be taught or suggested by the
combination of Logan and Walker, and claims 2 and 3 to be taught or
suggested by the combination of Logan, Walker, and Holley. Appellant
argues specifically against the teachings of Logan and Walker as applied to
claim 1.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Logue to describe a
smart-home environment including a plurality of intelligent, multi-sensing,
network connected devices that can integrate with a server or cloud-
computing system. Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds the collection of
network devices, having processors and memory, and integrated with each
other and with a cloud-computing system, to teach or suggest the claimed
“computing management system including a computer processor, and a
computer readable storage medium configured to run embedded software
and cloud server software.” Ans. 10.
The Examiner further finds Logue to describe a smart hazard detector
104 that detects a hazardous substance or condition, and output a hazard
condition signal. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner further finds Logue to
Appeal 2020-004460
Application 15/744,611

5
describe a central server that accepts an electrical command from the smart-
home environment of networked devices. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds the
detector and server to teach or suggest the claimed “detection device adapted
to detect a hazard condition and output an associated hazard condition
detected signal to the computing management system . . . [and] at least one
condition deterrence device configured to accept respective electrical
command signals from the computing management system associated with
the hazard condition detected signal.” Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 10.
The Examiner further finds Logue to describe lamps powered by wall
plugs, and that the smart-home environment turns on lights (e.g., lamps) that
indicate exit routes from occupied rooms so as to provide emergency exit
lighting. Final Act. 3; Ans. 11. The Examiner finds this to teach or suggest
the claimed “ancillary alert device including lighting configured to accept
respective electrical command signals from the computing management
system associated with the hazard condition detected signal to assist in home
evacuation.” Id.
The Examiner finds Walker to describe a wireless fire alarm door
unlocking system that receives information from a central alarm panel,
including a lock configured to at least unlock an ingress/egress point as
directed by a computing management system. Final Act. 4; Ans. 11 (citing
Walker 2:40–56; 4:4–27). The Examiner finds the combination of Logue
and Walker to teach or suggest the claimed
control at least one appliance as a result of the detected hazard
condition to at least reduce risk presented by the hazard
condition and assist in home evacuation, wherein the at least
one appliance includes an ingress/egress point of a home, and
the at least one condition deterrence device includes a lock
Appeal 2020-004460
Application 15/744,611

6
configured to at least unlock the ingress/egress point as directed
by the computing management system.
Final Act. 4.
Appellant first argues that the Examiner finds the central server of
Logue to be both the computer management system and the condition
deterrence device of claim 1. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues that the claim
requires these elements to be separate, with the condition determining device
receiving command signals from the computing management system. Id.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument. The
Examiner has mapped the claimed “computing management system” and the
claimed “condition deterrence device” to different elements in Logue; i.e.,
the smart-home network of devices having processors and memory, and the
central server, respectively. Ans. 10. Appellant has not argued persuasively
against these findings.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner, by relying on Logue’s
description of turning on lights, has not shown the claimed element of an
“appliance,” because claim 1 instead refers to lighting as an “ancillary alert
device.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant further argues that Logue does not
disclose an appliance as a home ingress/egress point, or a lock as a condition
deterrence device. Id. at 5. Appellant contends that Walker describes its
lock and its alarm device as receiving commands from different controllers.
Id.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument. Claim 1
requires both the ancillary alert device and the condition deterrence device to
accept command signals from the computing management system. The
Examiner relies on Logue for teaching the ancillary alert device (lighting),
for the sending of signals to an appliance, and for describing the use of smart
Appeal 2020-004460
Application 15/744,611

7
door locks. Final Act. 3 (citing Logue ¶ 222 for smart door locks). The
Examiner relies on Walker for unlocking door locks on a door; i.e., an
appliance as set forth in claim 1, in response to a detected emergency
condition. Id. at 4. Thus, the Examiner has relied upon the combination of
Logue and Walker to teach the claimed appliance. Ans. 11 (“Together the
combination reads on the claim language”). The test for obviousness is
“what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). Appellant has not persuasively explained how the combination does
not teach or suggest these claim elements.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 as obvious over the teachings and suggestions of Logue
and Walker. For the same reason, we determine that Appellant has not
shown error in the rejection of claim 4, rejected over Logue and Walker, and
not argued separately, or in the rejections of claims 2 and 3, dependent from
claim 1 and not argued against with particularity by Appellant. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4.

2. Claims 6–17
Claims 6–15 follow the same general form as claims 1–4, further
specifying “wherein the at least one appliance includes” a particular
appliance and details of the condition deterrence device. The further
specified appliances/devices include a garage door and motor (claim 6), pet
door and actuator (claim 7), curtain and motor (claim 8), appliance gas main
and valve (claim 9), gas fireplace and valve (claim 10), appliance electric
load center and circuit breaker (claim 11), solar panel and circuit breaker
Appeal 2020-004460
Application 15/744,611

8
(claim 12), electrostatic filter and energizing device (claim 13), humidifier
and actuating device (claim 14), HVAC system and device communicating
with HVAC controller (claim 15). Appeal Br. 17–18. Claim 16 further
comprises intelligent air vents, and claim 17 (which was not specifically
addressed in the Appeal Brief) further specifies the command signal as a
wireless command signal. Id at 18.
Appellant has not argued that the combinations of references applied
to each individual claim do not teach these appliances and devices, except as
to claim 9 (which we address, infra). Appeal Br. 5–14. Rather, Appellant
argues that the combinations of references do not teach the claimed door
lock and further recited appliances “as deterrence devices that actuate upon a
common detected hazard condition.” Id. Further, Appellant argues that
each deterrence device (i.e., the lock and the further appliance), receive
separate command signals from a common computing management system.
Id. at 6.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments. The
Examiner has combined the teachings of the additional references in such a
manner as to provide additional capability to the system taught by the
combination of Logue and Walker. For example, the Examiner addresses
the additional garage door and motor limitations of claim 6 with the
teachings of integrated garage door lock and motor devices, such that
additional ingress/egress is automatically provided to allow occupants to
leave, or firefighters to enter. Final Act. 6. We determine that provision of
multiple additional functionalities is consistent with the teachings of Logue.
For example, Logue discusses multiple device actuations based on a
detection of a room being occupied, such as controlling supply of power to
Appeal 2020-004460
Application 15/744,611

9
wall plugs, controlling the power or speed of a ceiling fan, employing “one
or more” service robots to play music or purify air. Logue ¶¶ 44, 60.
Therefore, we find the Examiner’s combinations providing simultaneous
activation of multiple appliances to be consistent with Logue’s system, and
consistent with the Examiner’s stated advantages of providing additional
functionalities responsive to a detected hazard condition.
We turn to Appellant’s specific argument against claim 9, which adds
the limitation wherein the at least one appliance includes an appliance gas
main, and the condition deterrence device includes an actuated valve to shut
off the gas main. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues that the applied Bartlett
reference refers to “electrically shutting off a toaster oven, that in-turn
causes the toaster oven to shut down normally and/or shut off ‘the source of
natural gas.’” and not to a gas valve. Id. at 7.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument. Bartlett
describes a “first input can be from a gas sensor that can detect pre- and
post-combustion natural gas,” and that if a level of pre-combustion natural
gas is detected to be elevated at the same time a toaster is detected to be on,
action can be taken to turn off the toaster and shut off the source of the
natural gas. Bartlett ¶ 22. Bartlett thus discloses two actions being taken,
one of which is to shut off the source of gas, and not simply an electrical
action that “in-turn” results in the shutting off of gas, as argued by
Appellant. Consequently, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 6–17.
Appeal 2020-004460
Application 15/744,611

10
CONCLUSION
For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 1–4 and 6–17 over the applied art, as
summarized below.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4 103 Logue, Walker 1, 4
2, 3 103 Logue, Walker, Holley 2, 3
6, 7 103 Logue, Walker, Patrick 6, 7
9 103 Logue, Walker, Bartlett 9
10 103 Logue, Walker, Bartlett,
Huang
10
11 103 Logue, Walker, Fuller 11
12 103 Logue, Walker, Clifton 12
8, 13–17 103 Logue, Walker, Pillai 8, 13–17
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–17

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019).

AFFIRMED