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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 01/07/2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenburg (US 2021/0183213 A1) in view of Warren (US 2016/0138823 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rosenburg discloses a doorbell device (figs. 29-30; abstract: video doorbell device) comprising:
a doorbell button (fig. 30: button 3015);
an energy storage device configured to provide energy to drive the doorbell device (fig. 29: a chime kit 2905 with integral energy storage device 2910);
electrical connectors configured to electrically connect the doorbell device in a doorbell circuit with a doorbell chime and a transformer (figs. 29-30; [0149]–[0157], [0165]: teaches a video doorbell device 2915 with button 3015, a chime kit 2905 with integral energy storage device 2910, and electrical connectors 2925 coupling the transformer 2935, doorbell device 2915, and chime kit 2905 in series.), wherein the transformer provides current to the doorbell circuit ([0149]: teaches video doorbell device 2915 and chime kit 2905 can be coupled in-series with a transformer 2935 that supplies power to both devices via conductors 2925.);
a controller comprising at least one processor and non-transitory data storage (figs. 29-30; [0157], [0168]: teaches a doorbell MCU 3005 and a chime kit MCU 3055 controlling the operation of the system. Each MCU is a microcontroller (processor) having integrated or connected non-volatile memory storing executable instructions for operating the system), wherein the non-transitory data storage stores program instructions executable by the processor to cause the doorbell device to carry out operations including:
drawing a current through the doorbell circuit ([0165]–[0166], [0176]: teaches energy-harvesting circuitry 3040 can use PWM-controlled FETs to extract relatively small fractions of one-half an AC cycle to ‘trickle-charge’ energy-storage device 2910, enabling video-doorbell device 2915 to continuously operate).
However, Rosenburg does not expressly disclose "while drawing the current through the doorbell circuit, determining a maximum doorbell circuit current that will not activate the doorbell chime, wherein determining the maximum doorbell circuit current that will not activate the doorbell chime comprises: (i) determining whether the current being drawn through the doorbell circuit has activated the doorbell chime, (ii) in response to determining that the current being drawn through the doorbell circuit has activated the doorbell chime, decrementing the current drawn through the doorbell circuit, (iii) in response to determining that the current being drawn through the doorbell circuit has not activated the doorbell chime, incrementing the current drawn through the doorbell circuit; and based on determining the maximum doorbell circuit current that will not activate the doorbell chime, configuring the doorbell device to draw the determined maximum doorbell circuit current through the doorbell circuit." Rosenburg discloses self-calibration and activation-based current adjustment. [0097] teaches detecting actual, confirmed chime activation through acoustic feedback (hum or buzz) or electromagnetic sensing (inductance and Q factor changes caused by physical plunger movement); and adjusting the current limit setting in response to that confirmed activation. These are the precise functional equivalents of the claimed steps of determining whether the current being drawn has activated the doorbell chime and then adjusting current accordingly. Rosenburg additionally acknowledges that excessive current draw can activate the chime ([0069]) and discloses current-sense circuitry (3060, 3050) that monitors AC waveform asymmetry to detect chime activation ([0167], [0169], [0179]–[0183]). However, Rosenburg does not expressly describe the self-calibration process of [0097] in detailed algorithmic form. Specifically, Rosenburg does not expressly disclose the iterative process of incrementing current until the chime activates, then decrementing upon confirmed activation, and configuring the device to draw the resulting maximum current.
Warren teaches an adaptive power-harvesting control technique for an HVAC thermostat operating on a similar low-voltage transformer circuit that includes an electromechanical load (relay coil) analogous to Rosenburg’s chime solenoid. As shown in Figure 8 and paragraphs [0045]–[0047], Warren teaches a systematic, iterative control algorithm in which: (i) the controller periodically measures voltage across the circuit while drawing current ([0045]–[0046]); (ii) if the measured voltage drop is greater than an expected range, the controller decreases current draw ([0047], steps 818–820); and (iii) if the voltage drop is lower than expected, the controller increases current draw toward a higher safe level ([0047], steps 822–824). Warren's claims 1 and 2 expressly recite this iterative framework: increasing harvested power until the electrical characteristic indicates a risk of interfering with normal operation, then decreasing power until the risk is no longer indicated.
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 implement Warren's structured iterative increment/decrement algorithm as the algorithmic mechanism by which Rosenburg's described self-calibration process ([0097]) is carried out. Both references address the same fundamental engineering problem: maximizing harvested current from a transformer-powered circuit without inadvertently activating a connected electromechanical load. Rosenburg describes the goal and the detection methodology (acoustic and electromagnetic sensing of actual chime activation) but leaves the iterative control algorithm implicit. Warren provides exactly that algorithm in detailed, step-by-step form. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to implement the self-calibration described in Rosenburg [0097] would have found it obvious and straightforward to apply Warren's systematic increment/decrement feedback routine, as the two approaches are fully complementary and directed to identical engineering objectives. Such combination represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would have yielded the known benefit of preventing nuisance chime activation while maximizing charging efficiency of energy-storage device 2910.
Regarding claim 2, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the doorbell device of claim 1, wherein determining whether the current being drawn through the doorbell circuit has activated the doorbell chime comprises detecting a change in voltage across the doorbell circuit, wherein the change in voltage across the doorbell circuit occurs upon activation of the doorbell chime (Rosenburg discloses a doorbell system (2900) including a doorbell device 2915, chime 2905, and transformer 2935 connected in-series via conductors 2925 ([0149]–[0153]). The system detects button activation through a change in waveform on the conductors, wherein button-detect circuitry 3060 monitors voltage and detects when the AC waveform changes from symmetric to asymmetric, corresponding to chime activation ([0169], [0190]–[0193]). Thus, Rosenburg teaches detecting a voltage change across the circuit indicative of chime activation. Rosenburg, however, does not expressly disclose determining whether current being drawn through the doorbell circuit has activated the chime based on that voltage change. Warren teaches monitoring voltage across a transformer-driven circuit to determine whether current flow has activated a load, adjusting current draw accordingly ([0044]–[0047]; figs. 6–8). Warren’s controller interprets a change in voltage as indicative of activation of the downstream relay load. 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 incorporate Warren’s voltage-based activation-detection technique into Rosenburg’s doorbell circuit to more accurately detect when current flow activates the chime, since both systems address preventing inadvertent load activation in low-voltage transformer circuits. Such combination would represent a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.).
Regarding claim 3, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the doorbell device of claim 1, wherein activating the doorbell chime comprises the current drawn through the doorbell circuit activating an electromagnet in the doorbell circuit, wherein the electromagnet is attracted to the doorbell chime in the doorbell circuit (Rosenburg discloses a doorbell system (2900) including a chime 2930 that is driven by chime driver circuitry 3065, which converts DC power from an energy storage device 2910 into AC power to drive a chime solenoid ([0170]). The solenoid operates to generate an audible notification when activated by current drawn through the doorbell circuit ([0170], [0182]–[0183]). The chime kit transfers energy from the energy storage device to the chime such that the chime generates an audible sound notifying the occupant that the doorbell button has been activated ([0183]). A solenoid-type chime, as described, inherently includes an electromagnet that moves a striker or component toward the chime when energized. Thus, Rosenburg teaches that activation of the doorbell chime is achieved by current through the circuit energizing an electromagnet that mechanically drives the chime. However, Rosenburg does not explicitly state that the electromagnet is “attracted to the doorbell chime,” such operation is well known in conventional solenoid-type doorbell mechanisms. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Rosenburg’s chime driver circuitry 3065, which energizes a solenoid to produce an audible sound ([0170]), inherently operates by magnetic attraction of an electromagnet to a movable striker or chime component. Moreover, Warren discloses transformer-driven control circuits that include relays 570, 572, and 574 ([0036]–[0037], FIG. 5A), which are electromechanical devices understood in the art to function through electromagnetic actuation of a coil. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize and apply this known principle of electromagnetic actuation to Rosenburg’s solenoid chime, as it represents a predictable use of known elements performing their established functions).
Regarding claim 5, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the doorbell device of claim 1, wherein determining whether the current being drawn through the doorbell circuit has activated the doorbell chime comprises detecting a change in resistance across the doorbell circuit, wherein the change in resistance across the doorbell circuit occurs upon activation of the doorbell chime (Rosenburg discloses a doorbell system in which the controller monitors electrical characteristics of the doorbell circuit to detect activation events ([0189]–[0195]; Figs. 34–36). Rosenburg explains that the video doorbell device changes a symmetric AC waveform to an asymmetric waveform to signal the chime kit, and the chime kit includes button-detect circuitry that senses that waveform change to determine activation. Rosenburg also describes monitoring voltage or current behavior in the circuit for detecting signaling and activation events ([0179]–[0183], [0193]). Thus, Rosenburg teaches detecting activation conditions in the doorbell circuit based on sensed electrical parameters such as voltage or current. However, Rosenburg does not explicitly disclose that the detection is based specifically on a change in resistance across the circuit. Warren discloses a control circuit that monitors voltage and current behavior of an HVAC control path to detect activation of a load such as a relay or contactor ([0044]–[0047]; Fig. 6). Warren explains that changes in measured voltage across the control path are indicative of the operating state of the connected load, thereby showing that variations in circuit resistance inherently accompany and can be inferred from those voltage and current changes. 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 recognized, based on the well-known electrical relationship among voltage, current, and resistance (Ohm’s law) and that measuring resistance instead of voltage or current provides equivalent diagnostic information about circuit state. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Rosenburg’s doorbell system to determine activation of the doorbell chime by detecting a change in resistance across the doorbell circuit as taught and suggested by Warren. Such substitution would predictably achieve the same result of detecting circuit activation based on a measurable electrical parameter, since voltage, current, and resistance are directly related quantities commonly used interchangeably for circuit monitoring.).
Regarding claim 6, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the doorbell device of claim 5, wherein detecting the change in resistance across the doorbell circuit comprises detecting a temperature change in an electromagnet coil in the doorbell circuit (Rosenburg discloses a doorbell system including a chime driver circuit that activates an electromagnetic chime ([0170], [0174]). The chime driver energizes a solenoid coil to actuate the chime, inherently producing resistive heating due to current flow through the coil, which in turn alters its resistance. Rosenburg therefore teaches a doorbell circuit in which an electromagnet coil experiences a temperature-dependent resistance change during activation. However, Rosenburg does not explicitly disclose detecting the temperature change in the coil as part of the monitoring process. Warren discloses monitoring voltage and current behavior in a control circuit to detect load activation conditions ([0044]–[0047]; Figs. 6-8). It is well known that the resistance of conductive coils varies with temperature, and such variation can be measured or inferred to assess circuit state. A person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Warren’s teachings and the known relationship between temperature and resistance, would have been motivated to incorporate temperature-based resistance detection in Rosenburg’s circuit to provide a more accurate indication of chime activation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rosenburg to detect temperature-induced resistance change in the electromagnet coil, since doing so would predictably enhance circuit monitoring accuracy using a known physical principle.).
Regarding claim 9, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the doorbell device of claim 1, wherein the doorbell device further comprises a microphone, and wherein determining whether the current being drawn through the doorbell circuit has activated the doorbell chime comprises detecting, with the microphone, a doorbell chime sound (Rosenburg discloses that the doorbell device includes a microphone for audio communication ([0070], [0142], [0158]) and that the system can detect audible or mechanical chime indications ([0097]), suggesting that audible feedback may be used to identify chime activation. Warren teaches feedback control that detects activation of an electromechanical load (relay coil) and adjusts current accordingly ([0045]–[0047]; FIG. 8). 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 utilize the existing microphone in Rosenburg’s doorbell to detect the audible chime sound as a feedback signal in the adaptive control process of Warren. Using the microphone to confirm chime activation would improve feedback reliability under varying electrical conditions by providing direct acoustic confirmation of the event, thereby enhancing the accuracy and robustness of the current-limit control. Both references address transformer-powered circuits driving electromechanical loads; combining them would predictably yield improved activation detection without undue complexity.).
Regarding claim 13, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the doorbell device of claim 1, wherein the current drawn through the doorbell circuit is drawn based on a duty cycle, and wherein the maximum current comprises a maximum over time (Rosenburg discloses a transformer-powered doorbell device (Figs. 29–30; [0149]–[0168]) having energy-harvesting circuitry 3040 that uses pulse-width-modulated (PWM) FET control to draw current in portions of each AC cycle ([0165]–[0166], [0176]), thereby regulating current based on a duty cycle. However, Rosenburg does not expressly teach that the maximum current comprises a “maximum over time.” Warren teaches adaptive power-harvesting in a transformer-driven relay circuit, where the controller 640 adjusts current draw to remain below an activation threshold averaged over time ([0045]–[0047], steps 818–824). 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 apply Warren’s time-averaged current-limit control to Rosenburg’s PWM duty-cycle scheme so that the doorbell device maintains a safe maximum current over time while harvesting sufficient energy. Both references address transformer-powered control circuits that balance energy extraction with prevention of load activation; combining their teachings would predictably improve stability and charging efficiency.).
Regarding claim 14, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the doorbell device of claim 1, further comprising using the current drawn through doorbell circuit to charge the energy storage device (Rosenburg teaches a transformer-powered doorbell device having energy-harvesting circuitry 3040 that draws current through the doorbell circuit to charge an energy storage device 2910 ([0165]–[0166], [0176]). Warren similarly teaches a rechargeable battery 644 charged via harvested current from a transformer-driven circuit ([0043]).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 use the current drawn through the doorbell circuit of Rosenburg to charge the energy storage device, as this represents the standard function of harvested current in such transformer-powered systems and would predictably maintain operational power).
Regarding claim 15, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the doorbell device of claim 14, further comprising: determining an energy storage device threshold, wherein the energy storage device threshold is an amount of energy storage device charge used for each doorbell device ring; determining, based on the maximum doorbell circuit current, an amount of time needed to charge the energy storage device to the energy storage device threshold; and after the doorbell device has been rung, limiting the doorbell device's ability to ring for the time needed to charge the energy storage device to the energy storage device threshold (Rosenburg teaches a doorbell device with an energy storage device 2910 that powers doorbell operations and is periodically recharged via controlled current draw ([0165]–[0166], [0176]). Warren teaches monitoring stored charge and regulating recharge time based on available harvested current and battery capacity thresholds ([0043], [0047]). 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 adapt Warren’s threshold-based recharge timing to Rosenburg’s energy storage system so that the doorbell determines the charge time needed to reach a set energy threshold and temporarily limits ringing until recharged, thereby ensuring stable operation and efficient power management).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenburg (US 2021/0183213 A1) in view of Warren (US 2016/0138823 A1) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1 above. Claim 16 is directed to a method reciting steps and functions corresponding to the system features of claim 1, and the scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same. Accordingly, the teachings of Rosenburg in view of Warren that render claim 1 obvious likewise apply to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the method of configuring the doorbell device of claim 16, wherein determining whether the current being drawn through the doorbell circuit has activated the doorbell chime comprises: detecting a voltage across the doorbell circuit; stepping up the current drawn through the doorbell circuit in predetermined amounts; and detecting a change in the voltage across the doorbell circuit (Rosenburg teaches a transformer-powered doorbell device that draws current through the doorbell circuit using PWM-controlled FETs and monitors circuit voltage via current-sense circuitry 3050 and button-detect circuitry 3060 ([0165]–[0169]). Warren teaches measuring voltage across the circuit at different current levels to detect activation thresholds and control power harvesting ([0045]–[0047]). 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 implement Warren’s stepwise current-increment and voltage-change detection technique within Rosenburg’s monitoring circuitry to determine chime activation, as both references address transformer-powered circuits that sense voltage variations to regulate safe current draw.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenburg (US 2021/0183213 A1) in view of Warren (US 2016/0138823 A1). Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth with respect to claim 1 above. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for executing steps corresponding to the system features of claim 1 above, and the scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same. Accordingly, the teachings of Rosenburg in view of Warren that render claim 1 obvious likewise apply to claim 20.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenburg (US 2021/0183213 A1) in view of Warren (US 2016/0138823 A1) and further in view of Admitted Prior Art (previous Official Notice).
Regarding claim 4, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the doorbell device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining whether the current being drawn through the doorbell circuit has activated the doorbell chime comprises: sending an instruction to a user, via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a mobile device, to listen for a doorbell chime sound; and receiving feedback from the user via the GUI, wherein the feedback comprises either that the doorbell chime sound was activated or that the doorbell chime sound was not activated. However, the Applicant admits (previous Official Notice) that, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it was well known in the consumer electronics and smart device arts to use mobile application graphical user interfaces (GUIs) during device setup or calibration to prompt a user to perform a test (e.g., listen for an audible event such as a chime) and then input confirmation (e.g., “Did you hear the chime? Yes / No”) through the GUI. Such user-guided verification steps are conventional in installation flows to confirm proper device operation, especially when devices may be physically distant or lack local displays. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement, in Rosenburg’s networked doorbell system (as adapted by Warren’s current control teachings), a GUI prompt asking the user to listen for a chime and to provide corresponding feedback via the mobile app.
Regarding claim 7, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the doorbell device of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose wherein detecting the temperature change comprises monitoring a temperature of the electromagnet coil with an external infrared sensor. However, the Applicant admits (previous Official Notice) that, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that non-contact infrared (IR) sensors were routinely employed to measure the temperature of electrical components such as coils, motors, and solenoids, by detecting emitted infrared radiation. Such non-contact IR temperature sensors have been commonly employed for equipment diagnostics, safety monitoring, and circuit performance evaluation. 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 modify Rosenburg’s doorbell system (as adapted by Warren’s current control teachings), in view of the general knowledge in the art as recognized above, to monitor the temperature of the electromagnet coil with an external infrared sensor. Doing so would have predictably provided a known and reliable way to detect coil temperature for improved monitoring accuracy and thermal diagnostics.
Regarding claim 8, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the doorbell device of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the doorbell circuit further comprises a temperature sensor, and wherein detecting the temperature change comprises monitoring the temperature of the electromagnet coil with the temperature sensor. However, the Applicant admits (previous Official Notice) that, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it was well known in the art to incorporate temperature sensors such as thermistors or resistance temperature detectors (RTDs) into electrical circuits to monitor coil or component temperature. Such sensors are routinely used in transformers, relays, and solenoids to detect overheating, provide feedback control, and ensure reliable operation. 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 modify Rosenburg’s doorbell circuit (as adapted by Warren’s current control teachings), in view of the general knowledge in the art, to include a temperature sensor coupled to the electromagnet coil so the system can directly monitor coil temperature. Doing so represents the use of a known component for its known purpose of improving temperature-based diagnostics and operational safety of the circuit, yielding predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenburg (US 2021/0183213 A1) in view of Warren (US 2016/0138823 A1) and Admitted Prior Art (previous Official Notice) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 4 above. Claim 18 is directed to a method reciting steps and functions corresponding to the system features of claim 4, and the scope and content of the recited limitations are substantially the same. Accordingly, the teachings of Rosenburg in view of Warren and Admitted Prior Art that render claim 4 obvious likewise apply to claim 18.
Claims 10-12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenburg (US 2021/0183213 A1) in view of Warren (US 2016/0138823 A1) and further in view of Mimaroglu (US 2021/0158186 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the doorbell device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein determining whether the current being drawn through the doorbell circuit has activated the doorbell chime comprises: training a machine learning model based on doorbell data stored at a central server; determining, based on the trained machine learning model, a type of doorbell being used and a predetermined current associated with the type of doorbell being used; and determining that the doorbell chime has been activated when the current drawn through the doorbell circuit is greater than the predetermined current associated with the type of doorbell being used. Specifically, Rosenburg teaches a transformer-powered, network-connected doorbell system comprising a doorbell button, controller, and power-management circuitry that draws and regulates current through the doorbell circuit to operate a chime kit and energy-storage device ([0149]–[0170]). Rosenburg further discloses current-sense circuitry 3050 and button-detect circuitry 3060 that monitor current and voltage to determine activation of the chime ([0167]–[0170], [0193]–[0194]). Warren teaches determining activation by analyzing current profiles across the circuit and using stored thresholds or training data to identify activation conditions ([0045]–[0048]). However, Rosenburg and Warren do not explicitly teach training a machine-learning model at a central server to classify doorbell types and assign corresponding current thresholds.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Mimaroglu teaches training and deploying machine-learning models on aggregated power-usage data to predict or disaggregate energy consumption of specific target devices ([0145]–[0154]). In Mimaroglu, labeled energy-usage data from multiple locations are uploaded to a central system, and trained models identify device types and their associated energy-usage characteristics. The trained model then predicts device-specific power levels based on incoming current data from distributed devices.
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 incorporate Mimaroglu’s server-based machine-learning framework into the networked doorbell system of Rosenburg, as modified by Warren, such that doorbell data are stored and used to train a model to recognize different doorbell or chime configurations and their corresponding activation-current profiles. Applying Mimaroglu’s model would automate calibration of Warren’s current-limit control by enabling the doorbell to determine its device type and the associated safe-current threshold based on server-trained parameters. Because all three references address electrically powered loads whose operational states produce distinct current signatures, the combination would predictably improve adaptability and accuracy without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 11, Rosenburg in view of Warren and Mimaroglu discloses the doorbell device of claim 10, wherein the doorbell data comprises classifications of doorbell chimes based on at least one of a doorbell chime sound, a doorbell chime timing, a geographic location of the doorbell chime, or age of the doorbell chime, and wherein each classification is related to the predetermined current associated with the type of doorbell being used (Rosenburg in view of Warren and Mimaroglu teaches a doorbell device that determines whether a chime has been activated using a machine-learning model trained on doorbell data stored at a central server, the model identifying a doorbell type and associated safe-current threshold. Mimaroglu further discloses training machine-learning models using labeled, device-specific energy-usage data collected from multiple source locations to enable the model to recognize and predict usage patterns for specific devices ([0145]–[0154]). 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 apply Mimaroglu’s labeled-data approach to the doorbell system taught by Rosenburg in view of Warren so that the doorbell data include classifications of doorbell chimes based on observable parameters such as chime sound, activation timing, geographic location, or device age. Incorporating such distinguishing attributes into the model would have been a straightforward and predictable refinement to improve classification accuracy and ensure that each identified chime type is associated with its corresponding current threshold. The resulting system would thereby enhance the reliability of the adaptive current-limit control across varying doorbell installations).
Regarding claim 12, Rosenburg in view of Warren and Mimaroglu discloses the doorbell device of claim 11, wherein the doorbell chime sound and the doorbell chime timing of the doorbell device are sensed by a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) devices (Rosenburg and Warren collectively teach a network-connected doorbell system configured to monitor doorbell circuit current and determine activation of the doorbell chime based on current signatures, with Mimaroglu providing a machine-learning framework trained on device-specific electrical data to classify chime types and associated activation-current profiles. Mimaroglu further discloses that energy usage data and disaggregation inputs may be gathered from multiple source locations and devices over a communication network ([0034], [0036]–[0037], [0055], [0066], [0108], [0119]–[0121]), where household or device data can be collected from meters, smart appliances, or other connected nodes, each representing a networked IoT device that senses and transmits operational data. 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 modify the networked doorbell of Rosenburg, as adapted by Warren and Mimaroglu, so that the doorbell chime sound and timing are sensed by a plurality of IoT-enabled nodes, such as microphones, smart speakers, or networked environmental sensors, rather than solely by the doorbell unit itself. Such modification would have been motivated by the well-known benefits in IoT systems, including distributed sensing and data fusion across multiple networked devices to enhance recognition accuracy and contextual awareness. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that integrating Mimaroglu’s multi-source data collection framework into Rosenburg’s doorbell environment predictably improves the robustness of doorbell event detection by allowing corroboration of sound and timing data from multiple networked sensors.).
Regarding claim 19, Rosenburg in view of Warren discloses the method of configuring the doorbell device of claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein determining whether the current being drawn through the doorbell circuit has activated the doorbell chime comprises: training a machine learning model based on doorbell data stored at a central server; determining, based on the trained machine learning model, a type of doorbell being used and a predetermined current associated with the type of doorbell being used; and determining whether the current drawn through the doorbell circuit is the same as the predetermined current associated with the type of doorbell being used. Specifically, Rosenburg and Warren together teach a transformer-powered doorbell system that adaptively controls and measures current to prevent unintended chime activation (Rosenburg [0165]–[0169]; Warren [0045]–[0047]).
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Mimaroglu teaches training a machine-learning model using device-specific energy data stored on a central server to identify device types and predict operational parameters such as power or current usage ([0145]–[0154]).
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 incorporate Mimaroglu’s server-trained model into Rosenburg’s networked doorbell system, as modified by Warren, so that the doorbell device determines its type and associated safe-current threshold from stored data and compares its measured current to that predetermined value. Such integration represents a predictable application of known server-based ML energy-disaggregation techniques to transformer-powered devices for automated configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2027 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Warren teaches decrementing current only in response to determining that the chime is likely to activate, rather than in response to determining that the chime has activated as recited in claim 1. Applicant separately argues that neither reference teaches incrementing current in response to determining that the chime has not been activated. Both arguments are unpersuasive because they attack the references individually rather than addressing the combination as a whole. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As to the decrement step, the rejection relies on the combination of Rosenburg and Warren, not Warren alone. Rosenburg [0097] expressly teaches detecting confirmed chime activation through acoustic feedback (hum or buzz) and electromagnetic sensing (inductance and Q factor changes caused by physical plunger movement), and adjusting the current limit in response to that confirmed activation. Warren supplies the iterative algorithmic framework by which that adjustment is carried out. Read together, the combination teaches decrementing current in response to a determination that the chime has activated, as recited in claim 1. Applicant's argument that Warren alone does not teach confirmed activation detection does not overcome a rejection based on the combination of both references. Moreover, Applicant's own specification at paragraph [0066] equates voltage change detection with confirmed chime activation, which is consistent with the combined teachings of Rosenburg and Warren. To the extent any difference exists between Warren's voltage threshold trigger and the claimed "has activated" condition, such difference would have been a matter of routine engineering implementation detail that would not have required more than ordinary skill to resolve.
As to the increment step, Applicant's argument is similarly unpersuasive because it attacks Warren in isolation. Rosenburg [0097]'s self-calibration process inherently requires increasing current when activation has not been detected in order to probe toward the maximum safe current. Warren expressly teaches incrementing harvested current when the measured electrical characteristic indicates no activation risk (Fig. 8, steps 822-824). The increment and decrement steps are logical complements and necessary components of the same iterative boundary-finding process. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood both steps to be required to converge on the maximum safe current and would have found it obvious to implement both using Warren's algorithmic framework as applied to Rosenburg's confirmed activation detection methodology.
With respect to claims 4, 7, 8, and 18, the Examiner notes that the rejections were based in part on Official Notice of facts well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Applicant's response filed January 7, 2026 did not traverse the Official Notice taken in the prior Office Action. Accordingly, pursuant to MPEP 2144.03(C), the noticed facts are taken as admitted and are now treated as Admitted Prior Art for purposes of this and all subsequent proceedings.
Applicant offered no separate arguments for any dependent claim or for independent claims 16 and 20. Accordingly, the rejections of all pending claims 1-20 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights