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 Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6,9-16,19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell US 20150154850 in view of Fan US8670752.
Regarding claim 1, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door lock system coupled to a building [58], the door lock system comprising a door lock and one or more computing devices comprising processing circuitry configured to:
receive, from a visitor, an access request (i.e. occupants can use a mobile device to transmit access code to the smart doorknob 122 when a visitor is detected at the door. An access request could be considered a visitor typing an access code, approaching the door, ringing the doorbell.) [paragraph 131,251,419; fig. 30];
capture an identity trait of the visitor (i.e. identification data captured by smart devices) [5,68,425];
determine that the identity trait is associated with a known identity of the visitor (i.e. entity identification algorithm uses databases to determine identity and system can detect mobile device of visitors) [131,414,425]; and
move the door lock from a locked state to an unlocked state (i.e. smart doorknob automatically unlocks after recognizing a registered occupant) [58]; and
Fadell do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
log i) the door lock moving from the locked state to the unlocked state, ii) a time associated with the door lock moving, and iii) the identity trait of the visitor.
However, in the same field of endeavor Fan discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
log i) the door lock moving from the locked state to the unlocked state, ii) a time associated with the door lock moving, and iii) the identity trait of the visitor, wherein the logging of the identity trait of the visitor occurs in response to the door lock moving from the locked state to the unlocked state (i.e. tracking door lock event (this would involve door locking/unlocking) associated with subscriber identities. Logging all lock and unlock transactions would involve a time and has identity of the EU device) [col 12, lines 55-63; claim 12].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Fadell with Fan to log i) the door lock moving from the locked state to the unlocked state, ii) a time associated with the door lock moving, and iii) the identity trait of the visitor, wherein the logging of the identity trait of the visitor occurs in response to the door lock moving from the locked state to the unlocked state.
It would be advantageous because this would enable the tracking of visitor to a location using history data of the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Fadell with Fan to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The door lock system of claim 1, wherein the access request comprises an indication of a push, by the visitor, of a doorbell coupled to the door lock (i.e. activating button 812 can cause facial recognition to ID visitor.) [254].
Regarding claim 3, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The door lock system of claim 1, wherein the access request comprises an indication of a user selection on a mobile application of the mobile computing device of the visitor (i.e. mobile device 166 can cause the lock to unlock using some signal) [58].
Regarding claim 4, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The door lock system of claim 1, wherein the access request comprises an approach of the visitor to the door lock, and wherein receiving the access request comprises receiving, from a motion sensor communicatively coupled to the processing circuitry, an indication of the approach of the visitor (i.e. doorbells have motion sensing components that can detect an approach of a visitor at the entrance and can alert an occupant and request access to the home.) [246].
Regarding claim 5, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The door lock system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to detect a signal indicative of a presence of a mobile device of the visitor and wherein the signal comprises a Bluetooth signal, a Wi-Fi signal, a radiofrequency identification (RFID) signal, a near-field communication (NFC) signal, or a geolocation signal of the mobile computing device of the visitor (i.e. Bluetooth or NFC used to identify mobile devices of a visitor) [58,131,134,251,246, 254].
Regarding claim 9, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The door lock system of claim 1, wherein the processing circruitry is further configured to detect a signal indicative of a presence of a first mobile computing device of the visitor, and wherein determining whether to grant access to the visitor comprises: forwarding the known identity of the visitor to a second mobile computing device of an owner of the door lock system; and receiving an unlock command from the second mobile computing device of the owner (i.e. Visitor’s mobile device can be interrogated to determine identity of a burglar’s mobile device and that can be sent to the owner’s mobile device. To gain access to the home (e.g., cause the smart doorknob 122 to unlock), the mobile device 166 of the user may transmit an access code to the smart doorknob 122, which then verifies with the server 164 that the person is a registered occupant. the occupant receives notice from the smart doorbell 106 that a trusted neighbor is approaching the door, the occupant can use the mobile device 166 to unlock the door so the neighbor can let himself or herself in.) [58,131,134,251].
Regarding claim 10, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The door lock system of claim 1, wherein determining whether to grant access to the visitor comprises receiving an unlock command from the mobile computing device of the visitor (i.e. To gain access to the home (e.g., cause the smart doorknob 122 to unlock), the mobile device 166 of the user may transmit an access code to the smart doorknob 122, which then verifies with the server 164 that the person is a registered occupant. The visitor can input access code to unlock home) [58,131,134,251].
Regarding claim 11, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The door lock system of claim 10, wherein the unlock command comprises an access code for the door lock (i.e. To gain access to the home (e.g., cause the smart doorknob 122 to unlock), the mobile device 166 of the user may transmit an access code to the smart doorknob 122, which then verifies with the server 164 that the person is a registered occupant.) [131,134,251].
Claim 12 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 12, wherein the remote database contains criminal identity information (i.e. ID performed using database of criminal and other databases) [425].
Claim 14 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 3.
Claim 15 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 5.
Claim 17 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 9.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 21 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2.
Claim 22 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 3.
Claim 23 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 4.
Claim 24 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 10.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell and Fan in view of Skaaksrud US 20150156747.
Regarding claim 25, Fadell and Fan do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: detect when an electrical power of the door lock falls below a predetermined threshold; and send a notification to a remote computing device associated with a user of the door lock indicating that the electrical power has fallen below the predetermined threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor Skaaksrud discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: detect when an electrical power of the door lock falls below a predetermined threshold; and send a notification to a remote computing device associated with a user of the door lock indicating that the electrical power has fallen below the predetermined threshold (i.e. In another example, multiple thresholds may be employed where each time the current power status drops below a different threshold, a different type of enhanced power alert notification may be broadcasted and elicit a different type of response from devices that receive the notification. For example, a node may have several different thresholds--an initial "low" level threshold, a lower "urgent" level threshold, and an even lower "critical" level threshold. When the power source on the node goes below each of these different thresholds, different alert levels may be assigned.) [1119].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Fadell and Fan with Skaaksrud to have the processing circuitry is further configured to: detect when an electrical power of the door lock falls below a predetermined threshold; and send a notification to a remote computing device associated with a user of the door lock indicating that the electrical power has fallen below the predetermined threshold.
It would be advantageous because this could prevent the powering off of the device due to low power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Fadell and Fan with Skaaksrud to obtain the invention as specified in claim 25.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights