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 the Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 13, 14, and 20 were amended in the reply filed January 26, 2026.
Examiner proposed an amendment to claims 1, 11, and 20 via email to Attorney John Golia to overcome the art rejection. Applicant acknowledged the email. However, no additional response or approval was received. The language of the proposed amendment is in the Response to Arguments below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 22, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Objections:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the objection made to claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the objection is withdrawn.
112(a):
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) to claims 4 and 14 and it is withdrawn.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Examiner notes that the references cited below teach, “determining whether the smart doorbell or a mobile device associated with the smart doorbell has the corresponding token to access non-public data from the RFID tag including the package identifier” and “based on the smart doorbell or the mobile device associated with the smart doorbell having the corresponding token, using the corresponding token to read the package identifier from the RFID tag”. However, they do not teach, “determining whether the smart doorbell
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-14, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0075400 to Scalisi et al. (Scalisi) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,699,606 to Bhatia et al. (Bhatia) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0005452 to Klingenberg et al. (Klingenberg) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0265149 to Langthaler et al. (Langthaler).
As to claims 1, 11, and 20, Scalisi teaches:
(Claim 11) one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (“FIG. 4 illustrates an internal view of the doorbell 202. Doorbells 202 can include a chip 480 (e.g., integrated circuits, microprocessor, computer) and a memory 492 …” [0151]):
(Claim 20) a machine-storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising (“… The code modules may be stored on any type of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or tangible computer storage device, such as hard drives, solid state memory, flash memory, optical disc, and/or the like …” [0290]):
detecting, by a smart doorbell, a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag at a time of attempted delivery of a package, the RFID tag comprising a package identifier and is associated with a corresponding token (“One way to tie the parcel 1106 to the digital key 1101 is with the use of a parcel identification code 1116. The doorbell 1102 and/or the lock system 1103 can receive 1150 a delivery parcel identification code 1116 of the delivery parcel 1106 … The delivery parcel identification code 1116 may be a radio-frequency identification (“RFID”) tag, a barcode, or another type of identification code …” and “The doorbell 1202 records a video 1264 in response to detecting 1260 the delivery person and/or in response to determining 1262 that the delivery parcel 1206 is an expected delivery item … Several methods may be used to determine that the delivery parcel 1206 is an expected delivery item including RFID tag scanning, bar code scanning by the camera 1230, reader 1214, or remote computing device 1204, shape recognition, label identification, etc. …” [0231 and 0235] Examiner notes that the digital key is a “corresponding token” and the parcel identification code is a “package identifier”);
and generating and transmitting, by the smart doorbell, a notification to the storage device, the notification causing the storage device to provide access for deposit of the package (“… When a doorbell system 1610 receives a delivery parcel identification code 1612 of the delivery parcel 1606, the doorbell system 1610 can send a first wireless communication 1614 to the lock system 1608 (e.g., in response to receiving the delivery parcel identification code 1612, the doorbell system 1610 sends a first wireless communication 1612 to the lock system 1608). The system can enable unlocking the door in response to receiving the first wireless communication …” [0244-0246] Examiner notes that, per paragraph [0018] of Applicant’s specification, a “storage device” includes “a building (e.g., residence) through a secured door”).
Scalisi does not teach, based on the detecting, determining whether the smart doorbell or a mobile device associated with the smart doorbell has the corresponding token that comprises credentials Bhatia teaches, based on the detecting, determining whether the smart doorbell or a mobile device associated with the smart doorbell has the corresponding token that comprises credentials (“… Such a computer system may be embodied in the form of a mobile computing device 100 (FIG. 1) (e.g., … home automation or smart home devices (e.g., smart bulbs, smart doorbells, door and window sensors, or other devices), various embedded computing devices, or other devices with like capability … ” and “In these cases, the confirmation token 241 can be exchanged at the time of delivery. After the confirmation token 241 is exchanged, the exchange of confirmation tokens can be reported to the delivery confirmation application 246 at a later time. Once the delivery confirmation application 246 receives a notification of the exchange of the confirmation token 241, the delivery confirmation application 246 can then confirm the delivery …” [col, 6, lines 10-32 and col. 10, line 16 – col. 11, line 25]),
the corresponding token and a corresponding package identifier being transmitted to a recipient prior to the attempted delivery (“The confirmation token 241 represents a token that can be exchanged between two or more client computing devices 206 to confirm that a delivery of a shipment has occurred …” and “… Depending on the particular embodiment of the disclosure, the delivery confirmation application 246 can send the confirmation token 241 to the client computing device 206 of the recipient 236 for the use of the recipient 236 in confirming delivery of the shipment …” [col. 5, lines 41-61 and col. 8, lines 28-46]);
based on the smart doorbell or the mobile device associated with the smart doorbell having the corresponding token, (“The confirmation token 241 represents a token that can be exchanged between two or more client computing devices 206 to confirm that a delivery of a shipment has occurred …” and “… Once the delivery confirmation application 246 receives a notification of the exchange of the confirmation token 241, the delivery confirmation application 246 can then confirm the delivery …” [col. 5, lines 41-61 and col. 10, lines 16-26]);
in response to the verifying, triggering display of a visual confirmation of the verifying on a reader device of a delivery person (“… As part of the confirmation process, a confirmation message can be sent to the client computing device 206 of the recipient 236 or the delivery agent 221” and “… The delivery agent 221 could then manipulate a user interface presented by the client application 253 to cause a camera on the delivery agent's client computing device 206 to capture an image of the QR code presented on the display of the client computing device 206 of the recipient 236 …” [col. 10, lines 16-26 and col. 10, line 60 – col. 11, line 12] Examiner notes that a confirmation message is a “visual confirmation of the verifying” and the delivery agent's client computing device is a “reader device of a delivery person”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, based on the detecting, determining whether the smart doorbell or a mobile device associated with the smart doorbell has the corresponding token that comprises credentials
Scalisi in view of Bhatia does not teach, causing display, on the reader device of the delivery person, of storage instructions to place the package in a storage device. However, Klingenberg teaches, causing display, on the reader device of the delivery person, of storage instructions to place the package in a storage device (“… The consignee can also provide additional instructions 1214, such as a code to get into the apartment building, the combination to a secure lockbox, or an indication of the location or combination to another package depository (such as a common delivery location at an apartment complex). The delivery instructions indicated by a consignee (such as shown in FIGS. 12A and 12B) can be communicated to delivery personnel by the carrier, by transmitting an appropriate message to a portable computing device carried by the delivery personnel, which has a display for indicating text messages or other graphical information of the delivery preferences selected by the consignee” and “Upon delivering the package to the consignee, the delivery personnel retrieves the DAF, and can scan it using a portable computing device, such as the DIAD …” [0070-0072 and 0157]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, causing display, on the reader device of the delivery person, of storage instructions to place the package in a storage device, as taught by Klingenberg with the delivery confirmation system of Scalisi in view of Bhatia. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Klingenberg that doing so would provide custom control and flexibility to consignors, consignees, and carriers for delivery of an item [0002].
Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg does not teach, the smart doorbell or a mobile device associated with the smart doorbell has the corresponding token that comprises credentials used to access non-public data from the RFID tag including the package identifier; based on the smart doorbell or the mobile device associated with the smart doorbell having the corresponding token, using the corresponding token to read the package identifier from the RFID tag. However, Langthaler teaches, the smart doorbell or a mobile device associated with the smart doorbell has the corresponding token that comprises credentials used to access non-public data from the RFID tag including the package identifier (“… The unique machine-readable identifier 3 may preferably be and/or comprise a visual code, in particular a barcode and/or a pattern, and/or a chip, in particular an RFID chip …” and “… Only by way of example, the reading out by means of a cell phone, in particular a smartphone, is mentioned at this point, wherein in this case, for example, the camera or other sensors installed in the cell phone can read out the unique machine-readable identifier 3, can establish a connection with the associated data structure 4 of the unique machine-readable identifier 3 and can add a data packet 5 to the associated data structure 4” and “The associated data structure 4 can preferably be encrypted using different encryption methods …” and “… In particular, it can be provided that only the private key can be used to read the data packets 5 from the data structure 4” [0048-0049 and 0053 and 0075 and 0102-0105]);
based on the smart doorbell or the mobile device associated with the smart doorbell having the corresponding token, using the corresponding token to read the package identifier from the RFID tag (“In particular, the unique machine-readable identifier 3 is non-destructively detachably applied to the package material 2 during the manufacture of the package 1 …” and “… Preferably, the RFID chip activated by the high-frequency electromagnetic alternating field transmits data, in particular the stored unique machine-readable identifier 3, to the readout device by field weakening” [0047-0050 and 0058-0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, the smart doorbell or a mobile device associated with the smart doorbell has the corresponding token that comprises credentials used to access non-public data from the RFID tag including the package identifier; based on the smart doorbell or the mobile device associated with the smart doorbell having the corresponding token, using the corresponding token to read the package identifier from the RFID tag, as taught by Langthaler with the delivery confirmation system of Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Langthaler that doing so would provide tamper-proof documentation of information about the packaging throughout its life cycle [0010].
As to claims 2 and 12, Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Scalisi in view of Bhatia does not teach, wherein the verifying comprises: generating a digital signature for acceptance of the package; and transmitting the digital signature to the reader device of the delivery person. However, Klingenberg teaches, wherein the verifying comprises: generating a digital signature for acceptance of the package (“… For example, in one embodiment, a consignee may be able to "sign" the form using a computer mouse to generally follow the shape of the consignee's signature. The process of providing an Electronic Signature is described further below” and “Returning to step 520, the consignee may alternatively request providing an online signature (step 530) to authorize delivery of the package …” [0119 and 0142-0144]).
and transmitting the digital signature to the reader device of the delivery person (“… The delivery personnel will then have information that an online signature has been provided at or before the time of delivery, and will deliver the package (step 550) without requiring a signature from the consignee upon delivery” and “… Upon delivering the package and retrieving the DAF, the delivery personnel may scan the DAF and the DIAD confirms that the serial number of the DAF is the serial number that was associated with the shipment by the DIAD Updating System 402 …” [0145 and 0153]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, generating a digital signature for acceptance of the package; and transmitting the digital signature to the reader device of the delivery person, as taught by Klingenberg with the delivery confirmation system of Scalisi in view of Bhatia. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Klingenberg that doing so would provide custom control and flexibility to consignors, consignees, and carriers for delivery of an item [0002].
As to claims 3 and 13, Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Scalisi further teaches, wherein the verifying comprises: comparing the corresponding package identifier from the RFID tag to the corresponding package identifier transmitted to the recipient for a match (“In some embodiments, a doorbell detects a delivery parcel identification code (e.g., by scanning a barcode of a shipping label or by receiving the delivery parcel identification code via a wireless communication). The system can check with a database (which can be located in the doorbell's memory or can be located remotely relative to the doorbell) to verify that the delivery parcel is supposed to be delivered to the address of the doorbell …” and “Verifying that the parcel identification code 1612 corresponds to an expected delivery item may include the parcel identification code 1612 being compared to a database to ensure it is the correct parcel, or checking it in another way …” [0242 and 0246-0247]).
As to claims 4 and 14, Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Scalisi further teaches, activating, via a mobile application on a mobile device of the recipient, a package acceptance component associated with the smart doorbell (“The user of the remote computing device 204 can select a button on application software running on the remote computing device 204 to initiate two-way audio and/or video communication with the visitor …” and “In some embodiments, the software includes means to start the video feed on demand. For example, a user of the computing device can wonder what is happening near the doorbell 202. The user can open the software application on the computing device 204 and instruct the application to show live video and/or audio from the security device 202 even if no event near the doorbell 202 has triggered the communication” [0117 and 0142] Examiner notes that initiating two-way audio and/or video communication is activating a package acceptance component associated with the smart doorbell),
the package acceptance component storing the corresponding package identifier and the corresponding token at the smart doorbell (“FIG. 4 illustrates an internal view of the doorbell 202. Doorbells 202 can include a chip 480 (e.g., integrated circuits, microprocessor, computer) and a memory 492 …” and “FIG. 15 shows a delivery parcel detection system 900. A delivery person may receive a digital key 901 from a delivery parcel detection system 900, from a smart lock 903, and/or from a doorbell 902 …” and “The doorbell system 1610 may receive the delivery parcel identification code 1612 of the delivery parcel 1606 in several ways …” [0151 and 0226 and 0247]),
wherein the verifying is performed by the smart doorbell (“To ensure security, the system may enable unlocking of the door 1602 in response to the doorbell system 1610 and/or the lock system 1608 verifying the delivery parcel 1606. The system may enable unlocking of the door 1602 in response to the doorbell system 1610 and/or the lock system 1608 verifying that the delivery parcel identification code 1612 corresponds to an expected delivery item (e.g., something the user has ordered) …” [0246]).
As to claim 5, Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Scalisi does not teach, wherein receipt of the corresponding package identifier and the corresponding token, the verifying, or the triggering display are performed by a mobile device of the recipient. However, Bhatia teaches, wherein receipt of the corresponding package identifier and the token, the verifying, and the triggering display are performed by a mobile device of the recipient (“… Depending on the particular embodiment of the disclosure, the delivery confirmation application 246 can send the confirmation token 241 to the client computing device 206 of the recipient 236 for the use of the recipient 236 in confirming delivery of the shipment …” and “”Beginning with box 703, the delivery confirmation application 246 receives a delivery notification from a client computing device 206 (FIG. 2). The client computing device 206 can be linked to either the recipient 236 (FIG. 2) or the delivery agent, depending on the implementation … The delivery notification can include various information about the shipment being delivered. For example, the delivery notification can include an identifier for a corresponding shipment record 219 (FIG. 2), a status indicating whether the shipment was partially or completely delivered, a time of delivery, the current location 226 (FIG. 2) of the client computing device 206 at the time of the delivery, a confirmation token 241 (FIG. 2), or potentially other data” and “… To initiate a transfer of the confirmation token 241, the recipient 236 could manipulate a user interface presented by the client application 253 to cause the client application 253 to render the confirmation token 241 on the display of the client computing device 206 of the recipient 236 …” [col. 8, lines 28-46 and col. 12, lines 32-60 and col. 11, lines 13-25]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein receipt of the corresponding package identifier and the token, the verifying, and the triggering display are performed by a mobile device of the recipient, as taught by Bhatia with the delivery confirmation system of Scalisi. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Bhatia that doing so would better determine whether a service was performed by a particular person at a particular time and place [col. 2, lines 21-23].
As to claims 7 and 16, Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Scalisi further teaches, wherein the notification includes data associated with the RFID tag (“Referring now to FIG. 10, in several embodiments the system 800 may comprise a first notification 814 sent from the doorbell 802 to the remote computing device 804 in response to the doorbell 802 detecting the radio-frequency identification tag 812 of the delivery parcel 806 …” [0221]),
and the storage device configured to open in response to the storage device detecting the data associated with the RFID tag (“… The door can be a garage door that is configured to open in response to detecting an authorized delivery parcel …” [0239-0241] Examiner notes that, per paragraph [0018] of Applicant’s specification, a “storage device” includes “a garage”).
As to claim 19, Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Scalisi further teaches, wherein the operations further comprise: generating and transmitting, by the smart doorbell, a notification to the mobile device of the recipient that the package has been delivered (“… Once the doorbell 702 has this information 715 it may send it on, in another communication, to the user, thus allowing the user to be notified that they have a parcel 706 and information 715 about it …” [0219-0220]).
Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0075400 to Scalisi et al. (Scalisi) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,699,606 to Bhatia et al. (Bhatia) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0005452 to Klingenberg et al. (Klingenberg) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0265149 to Langthaler et al. (Langthaler), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0213817 to Wechsler et al. (Wechsler).
As to claims 8 and 17, Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Scalisi further teaches, wherein providing access comprises: opening the storage device for the deposit of the package (“… The door can be a garage door that is configured to open in response to detecting an authorized delivery parcel …” [0239-0241]).
Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler does not teach, and closing the storage device after a predetermined amount of time or in response to receiving a delivery signal from the reader device of the delivery person. However, Wechsler teaches, and closing the storage device after a predetermined amount of time or in response to receiving a delivery signal from the reader device of the delivery person (“… An access procedure for a delivery person may include activating a garage entry activator 318 to open a garage for 30 seconds, followed by activating the garage entry activator to close the garage …” and “… In this example, the access procedure for the user includes activating a garage entry activator 318 to open the garage, waiting for five minutes, and activating the garage entry activator to close the garage … For example and in relation to an access procedure, the access server 304 may transmit an instruction to a garage door activator 318 to open a garage door of the premises, wait until a five minute time period has expired, and transmit another instruction to the garage door activator to close the garage …” [0042 and 0066-0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, and closing the storage device after a predetermined amount of time or in response to receiving a delivery signal from the reader device of the delivery person, as taught by Wechsler with the delivery confirmation system of Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Wechsler that doing so would provide increased control over various components or devices of a home or business structure, either while the operator is within the structure or located remotely [0002].
As to claims 9 and 18, Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg in view of Langthaler and in further view of Wechsler teaches all of the limitations of claims 8 and 17 as discussed above. Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler does not teach, wherein providing access further comprises turning off an alarm to the storage device or disabling a correspond alarm sensor of the storage device for at least a duration of time that the storage device is open and turning the alarm back on after delivery completion. However, Wechsler teaches, wherein providing access further comprises turning off an alarm to the storage device or disabling a correspond alarm sensor of the storage device for at least a duration of time that the storage device is open and turning the alarm back on after delivery completion (“… For example, an announcement device 322 may be configured to display a message of: “UPS driver—please proceed to west side of house. You will see a side door with a keypad lock. Use one-time code 1a2b3c for mudroom access. Please leave package there and close door behind you. Note, the alarm will be disabled for 30 seconds and your actions will be recorded. The system will re-arm once the door closes and the code will no longer work …” and “… In another example, the display 610 may instruct the user to “Please proceed to the side of house. Use one-time code 1a2b3c for mudroom access at the side door and leave the package. The alarm will be disabled for 30 seconds and your actions will be recorded. The system will re-arm once the door closes and the code will no longer work …” [0042 and 0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein providing access further comprises turning off an alarm to the storage device or disabling a correspond alarm sensor of the storage device for at least a duration of time that the storage device is open and turning the alarm back on after delivery completion, as taught by Wechsler with the delivery confirmation system of Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Wechsler that doing so would provide increased control over various components or devices of a home or business structure, either while the operator is within the structure or located remotely [0002].
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0075400 to Scalisi et al. (Scalisi) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,699,606 to Bhatia et al. (Bhatia) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0005452 to Klingenberg et al. (Klingenberg) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0265149 to Langthaler et al. (Langthaler), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0156030 to Fadell et al. (Fadell).
As to claim 10, Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Scalisi does not teach, further comprising triggering display of a visual confirmation on the smart doorbell. However Fadell teaches, further comprising triggering display of a visual confirmation on the smart doorbell (“… For example, system 164 may have access to any suitable trusted security information that may also be known by or validated by delivery business 228, whereby use of such information by system 164 within feedback provided to deliverer DL at step 2008 may be received and confirmed by delivery business 228 as an acceptable form of waiver of responsibility or acknowledgment such that deliverer DL may be able to leave package PL at environment 100 without actively receiving a signature of a user. For example, doorbell 106 may present an authorization code (e.g., in plain text, as any suitable code, or encrypted forms) on a user interface (e.g., on a display 830) as at least a portion of feedback at step 2008 and may prompt deliverer DL to use deliverer device 266 to record, scan, photograph, or otherwise acquire the authorization code for authentication and acceptance (e.g., as a detectable act at step 2010)” and “… Such confirmation of proper drop-off of package PL may be shared with delivery entity business 228 by system 164 (e.g., via API 210) and/or with deliverer DL (e.g., via doorbell 106) and/or with a system user (e.g., via a user device 166 or any suitable smart device)” [0363 and 0371]),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, further comprising triggering display of a visual confirmation on the smart doorbell, as taught by Fadell with the delivery confirmation system of Scalisi in view of Bhatia in view of Klingenberg and in further view of Langthaler. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Fadell that doing so would provide any of a variety of useful home security/smart home objectives [0002].
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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights