DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 9/12/2025 for application number 18/159,425.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erusalagandi et al. (WO 2020/092460 A1) in view of Caputo et al. (US 2023/0153932 A1).
In reference to claim 1, Erusalagandi discloses a system for using a body-worn camera (para. 0004) for virtual conferencing, the system comprising: an electronic locking mechanism operable to control the lock based on a wireless signal (wirelessly unlockable locking mechanism, para. 0036-39); a wearable device, wherein the wearable device comprises a video camera … (body camera, para. 0033) and is configured to: connect to at least one of an electronic locking mechanism or a user device; receive a signal indicating the electronic locking mechanism is unlocked using a user device (wearable device receives signal indicating unlocking of the locking mechanism, para. 0039); capture video data … to start a virtual session between the wearable device and a remote user device responsive to the signal indicating the electronic locking mechanism is unlocked; and transmit video data … to at least one user device or the remote user device in real time (video live streamed to another device, like front desk device, para. 0039, 0045, in real-time, para. 0013).
However, Erusalagandi does not explicitly teach a microphone, audio data, wherein the wearable device and the remote user device are configured to support real-time audiovisual communication during the virtual session, such that both the wearable device and the remote user device can send and receive audio and video data to and from each other.
Caputo teaches a microphone, audio data (para. 0053-56), wherein the wearable device and the remote user device are configured to support real-time audiovisual communication during the virtual session, such that both the wearable device and the remote user device can send and receive audio and video data to and from each other (showing agent and buyer both send and receive video and audio data in real-time, fig. 6 and para. 0050-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, having the teachings of Erusalagandi and Caputo before the earliest effective filing date, to modify the system as disclosed by Erusalagandi to include real-time communication as taught by Caputo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Erusalagandi to include the real-time communication of Caputo because it would allow the secure entry system of Erusalagandi to work in more diverse use cases, like real estate showings (Caputo, para. 0003).
In reference to claim 2, Erusalagandi teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a mobile user device that is operable to be connected to at least one of the wearable device or the electronic locking mechanism (the wearable device can further stream to a mobile device, para. 0045).
In reference to claim 3, Erusalagandi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the wearable device is at least one of a body-worn camera or a virtual glasses technology (body camera, para. 0033).
In reference to claim 5, Erusalagandi discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the wearable device is configured to automatically begin the virtual session responsive to receiving a signal from at least one of the mobile user device or the electronic locking mechanism (streaming starts automatically responsive to receiving signal from lock, para. 0039).
In reference to claim 6, Erusalagandi discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the wearable device is configured to capture and transmit video data in real-time (video is live streamed, para. 0039, 0045).
In reference to claim 7, Erusalagandi teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic locking mechanism is configured to be operated based on a radio signal (para. 0037).
In reference to claim 10, Erusalagandi discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a server to store the virtual session (server can store streamed video, para. 0045-56).
In reference to claim 11, this claim is directed to a method associated with the system claimed in claim 1 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 12, this claim is directed to a method associated with the system claimed in claim 2 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 13, this claim is directed to a method associated with the system claimed in claim 3 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 15, this claim is directed to a method associated with the system claimed in claim 5 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 16, this claim is directed to a method associated with the system claimed in claim 6 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 17, this claim is directed to a method associated with the system claimed in claim 7 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 20, this claim is directed to a method associated with the system claimed in claim 10 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 8-9, 14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erusalagandi et al. (WO 2020/092460 A1) in view of Caputo et al. (US 2023/0153932 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of Gant et al. (US 2022/0255997 A1).
In reference to claim 4, Erusalagandi and Caputo do not explicitly teach the system of claim 1, wherein the wearable device is a smart watch comprising a microphone and a camera.
Gant teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the wearable device is a smart watch comprising a microphone and a camera (device can be a smart watch, para. 0124, which mic, para. 0133 and camera, para. 0125).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, having the teachings of Erusalagandi, Caputo, and Gant before the earliest effective filing date, to modify the body-worn device as disclosed by Erusalagandi to include the smart watch as taught by Gant.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the body-worn device of Erusalagandi to include the smart watch of Gant because it would allow the system of Erusalagandi to be used with more types of body-wearable devices, like a smart watch.
In reference to claim 8, Erusalagandi and Caputo do not explicitly teach the system of claim 1, further comprising authorizing a secondary user device to unlock the electronic locking mechanism.
Gant teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising authorizing a secondary user device to unlock the electronic locking mechanism (a resident mobile device 314 is authorized to unlock the electronic lock, fig. 4, para. 0099-0100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, having the teachings of Erusalagandi, Caputo, and Gant before the earliest effective filing date, to modify the system as disclosed by Erusalagandi to include a secondary device as taught by Gant.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Erusalagandi to include the secondary device of Gant because it can help provide a more secure virtual entry system (Gant, para. 0033-35).
In reference to claim 9, Gant further teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the secondary user device is configured to unlock the electronic locking mechanism and is further configured to providee a signal to the wearable device to initiate the virtual session (resident device sends signal to unlock door 410, and then an unlock signal is generated 416, fig. 4, para. 0099-0102; when combined with Erusalagandi, this would cause the electronic lock of Erusalagandi to unlock, and send the signal to the wearable device to initiate the virtual session, thereby the secondary device is providing a signal to the wearable device).
In reference to claim 14, this claim is directed to a method associated with the system claimed in claim 4 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 18, this claim is directed to a method associated with the system claimed in claim 8 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
In reference to claim 19, this claim is directed to a method associated with the system claimed in claim 9 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see new reference Caputo above, which teaches two-way communication.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew T. Chiusano whose telephone number is (571)272-5231. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10am-6pm.
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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571-272-4241. 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.
/ANDREW T CHIUSANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144