Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-11, 13-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner et al. (US20210324672 A1) in view of Slavin (US 9804596 B1) and further in view of Deng et al. (US 20060114099 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Altiner teaches a method for operating a locking device (Altiner, Fig. 1, The door 100 comprises a pet access apparatus 10 including a pet door 102 which may be opened without the physical presence of a pet owner. The state of the pet door 102 may be controlled, for example, by a motor or linear actuator), comprising: performing operations by at least one sensor of the locking device to generate sensor data indicating at least one of a size of an animal and a shape of an animal (Altiner, Fig. 4, cameras 106, 108, user interface 122; Para. 59, pet recognition may be based on one or more aspects including facial features, iris and retinal features, body shape, color, and markings/patterns, and/or other identifying characteristic to identify the pet within the image; Para. 65, The user interface 122 may include touchpad that the pet may touch to open the pet access apparatus 10 and/or to identify the pet. For example, the touchpad may be configured to detect the pets paw size, shape, fingerprint, and/or nose print); and granting or denying access to an internal area of a compartment based on the classifying (Altiner, Para. 64, Where the pet door 102 is moved between closed and open positions, the pet door 102 may be moved to the fully open position creating the largest opening in the door 100 or to an open position intermediate the close position and the fully open position. The pet access apparatus 10 may determine the size of a specific pet via one or more images captured by the cameras 106, 108. The pet access apparatus 10 may determine an open position large enough to permit a specific pet to pass through. This minimizes the amount of heat entering or exiting the home when the pet door 102 is opened. Additionally, the pet access apparatus 10 may be configured to allow smaller pets to pass through and restrict larger pets or animals from pass through the pet door 102); wherein the granting comprises actuating a lock of the locking device such that the lock transitions from a locked position to an unlocked position (Altiner, Para. 68, when the pet door 102 is in a closed state, the locking mechanism 146 may be engaged to prevent the pet door 102 from being forced to an open position. The locking mechanism 146 may be in communication with the controller 104. The controller 104 may send a control signal to the locking mechanism 146 to lock the pet door 102. The controller 104 may be programmed to lock the pet door 102 whenever the pet door 102 is closed. The locking mechanism 146 may be or include a solenoid or linear actuator that moves the pin or rod in a manner similar to how a bolt is moved by a deadbolt lock. The locking mechanism 146 may include a pin or rod that, when in a locked position, extends into a portion of the pet door 102 preventing the pet door 102 from moving. The locking mechanism 146 may unlock the door by withdrawing the pin or rod from the pet door 102, thereby allowing the pet door 102 to be moved).
Altiner does not specifically teach comparing, by a processing unit of the locking device, the size of the animal to a minimum threshold size value and a maximum threshold size value to determine whether or not size limits are met, the size limits being met when the size of the animal falls between the minimum and maximum threshold size values; classifying, by the processing unit, the animal as an authorized animal or an unauthorized animal based on the comparing, wherein the animal is classified as an authorized animal when results of the comparing indicate that size limits are met and the animal is classified as an unauthorized animal when the results of the comparing indicate that the size limits are not met; wherein the at least one sensor is at least partially integrated with a grip structure configured to facilitate manual opening and closing of an access panel of the compartment.
However, Slavin teaches comparing, by a processing unit of the locking device, the size of the animal to a minimum threshold size value and a maximum threshold size value to determine whether or not size limits are met, the size limits being met when the size of the animal falls between the minimum and maximum threshold size values (Slavin, Col. 5, lines 35-50, An addition to the dog door system at the home, weight/size/mass sensors (e.g., a scale, a camera that can scan for size/shape, a radar type device that works like dolphin echolocation and can detect the size/shape/distance of what is in front of it) can be used to detect the size/shape/mass of the animal attempting to enter/exit through the dog door, to make sure that the animal attempting to enter/exit through the dog door is indeed the animal with permission. This serves as a redundant form of authentication to the ID on the dog collar, or may work if the collar falls off, or if a second animal is trying to enter with the dog that is rightfully allowed to enter; therefore it’s obvious that the system compares the scanned size data to a threshold size of 0 to a maximum size values to authenticate the animal attempting to enter/exit); classifying, by the processing unit, the animal as an authorized animal or an unauthorized animal based on the comparing, wherein the animal is classified as an authorized animal when results of the comparing indicate that size limits are met (Slavin, Col. 11, lines 33-59, the pet door 190 may have weight, mass or size sensors (e.g., a scale, a scanning camera, radar device) that scans a nearby pet to determine its shape, size and distance from the pet door 190. In such implementations, the pet door 190 may use such data as a verification technique to allow specific pets to enter and exit the property. For example, in properties where there are multiple pets, the pet door 190 may create a unique identifier for each pet using the weight, mass or size data to design specific rules for each individual pet within the property. In such examples, the pet door 190 may initially authenticate the pet beacon 142 on the pet prior to allowing the pet to enter or exit through the pet door 190) and the animal is classified as an unauthorized animal when the results of the comparing indicate that the size limits are not met (Slavin, Col. 11, lines 33-59, if a pet leaves the property and attempts to return with an unauthorized companion through the pet door 190, the pet door 190 may restrict entry into the property for the unauthorized companion to prevent a wild animal from entering the property. In addition, the pet door 190 may have specified rules for authorized pets (e.g., neighbor's pets) that allow authorized pets in addition to the pet owner's pets to enter the property).
Altiner and Slavin are analogous art because they both pertain to authenticating animals attempting to enter/exit through the pet door.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to authenticate based on size of the animal (as taught by Slavin) resulting in predictable result of authenticating the animal before granting access to the pet door.
Combination of Altiner and Slavin do not specifically teach wherein the at least one sensor is at least partially integrated with a grip structure configured to facilitate manual opening and closing of an access panel of the compartment.
However, Deng teaches wherein the at least one sensor is at least partially integrated with a grip structure configured to facilitate manual opening and closing of an access panel of the compartment (Deng, Para. 72, an image capture device 15 can be utilized in combination with the doorknob and lock of the present invention to observe, and record persons utilizing or attempting to utilize the door lock. For example an image capture device 15 such as a digital camera, video camera or closed circuit TV receiver communicates with the processor module 18 to facilitate identification of person(s) accessing or attempting to access the doorknob 1. By way of example, the processor 18 may be programmed to obtain and save an image, or video of any person gaining or attempting to gain access through the door by using the finger print sensor 16 on the door lock).
Altiner, Slavin, and Deng are analogous art because they all pertain to access control system based on authentication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the camera on the doorknob (as taught by Deng) resulting in predictable result of capture image data relating to the pet since the location where the camera is mounted is a user's choice, and does not change the camera’s ability to function (identifying the pets).
In regard to claim 2, Combination of Altiner, Slavin and Deng teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a touchless sensor configured to produce an electric field, the sensor data specifies a measured change in the electric field (Slavin, Col. 10, lines 54-67, the multiple pet beacons 142 may have specific identifiers that allow the monitoring system control unit 110 to associate the data from individual pet beacons 142 with data generated from individual pets. For instance, the pet gate 180 and gate lock 182 may have different rule-based activations for the different pet beacons 142 based on the behaviors of individual pets. In such instances, the gate lock 182 may perform a verification process to ensure that it only opens the pet gate 180 for the specified pet beacon 142 based on matching the unique identifier of the pet beacon to a transmission it receives from the monitoring system control unit), and the method further comprises comparing the measured change in the electric field to a threshold value which was selected based on a size and/or shape of the authorized animal ((Slavin, Col. 11, lines 33-59, the pet door 190 may have weight, mass or size sensors (e.g., a scale, a scanning camera, radar device) that scans a nearby pet to determine its shape, size and distance from the pet door 190. In such implementations, the pet door 190 may use such data as a verification technique to allow specific pets to enter and exit the property. For example, in properties where there are multiple pets, the pet door 190 may create a unique identifier for each pet using the weight, mass or size data to design specific rules for each individual pet within the property. In such examples, the pet door 190 may initially authenticate the pet beacon 142 on the pet prior to allowing the pet to enter or exit through the pet door 190).
In regard to claim 4, Combination of Altiner, Slavin, and Deng teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the sensor data specifies a change in an electric field and/or a characteristic of a reflected signal received by the at least one sensor (Altiner, Para. 45, The RFID tag 202 may be an active RFID tag that continuously or periodically transmits an identification code or signal, or a passive RFID tag that transmits upon being interrogated by the RFID reader 204. The RFID tag reader 204 may be integrated in the door 100 or mounted on the wall near the door 100. The RFID tag reader 204 may receive communication from the RFID tag 202 when the RFID tag 202 is near the door 100. The RFID tag reader 204 may use the strength of the signal received from RFID tag 202 to determine the proximity of the RFID tag 202 to the RFID tag reader 204. When the RFID tag reader 204 receives information from the RFID tag 202, the RFID tag reader 204 may communicate the information to a controller 104 of door 100, such as a microcontroller. The controller 104 may be configured to determine the pet's proximity to the door 100 and/or whether the pet's movements indicates the pet desires to pass through the door 100 based at least in part on the RFID communication).
In regard to claim 5, Combination of Altiner, Slavin, and Deng teach the method according to claim 4, wherein the characteristic of the reflected signal comprises an intensity of a light and/or a strength of a reflected signal (Altiner, Para. 45, The RFID tag 202 may be an active RFID tag that continuously or periodically transmits an identification code or signal, or a passive RFID tag that transmits upon being interrogated by the RFID reader 204. The RFID tag reader 204 may be integrated in the door 100 or mounted on the wall near the door 100. The RFID tag reader 204 may receive communication from the RFID tag 202 when the RFID tag 202 is near the door 100. The RFID tag reader 204 may use the strength of the signal received from RFID tag 202 to determine the proximity of the RFID tag 202 to the RFID tag reader 204. When the RFID tag reader 204 receives information from the RFID tag 202, the RFID tag reader 204 may communicate the information to a controller 104 of door 100, such as a microcontroller. The controller 104 may be configured to determine the pet's proximity to the door 100 and/or whether the pet's movements indicates the pet desires to pass through the door 100 based at least in part on the RFID communication).
In regard to claim 7, Combination of Altiner, Slavin, and Deng teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising using the grip structure as a sensor probe for the at least one sensor and to facilitate an opening and closing of the access panel (Altiner, Fig. 5, a switch or button 124; Para. 65, the user interface may include a switch or button 124, touchscreen display, microphone 123, and/or speaker 125 as examples. As an example, the user may press button 124 to cause the pet door 102 to open; Para. 67, The user interface 122 may include a vibration sensor or touch sensor that detects when a pet taps or touches the door or floor near the door, requesting the pet door 102 be opened; the location where the touch sensor is mounted is a user's choice, and does not change the touch sensor’s ability to function (detecting the pets)).
In regard to claim 9, Combination of Altiner, Slavin, and Deng teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising using the access panel as a sensor probe for the at least one sensor and to facilitate selective access to the internal area of the compartment (Altiner, Fig. 5, a switch or button 124; Para. 65, the user interface may include a switch or button 124, touchscreen display, microphone 123, and/or speaker 125 as examples. As an example, the user may press button 124 to cause the pet door 102 to open; Para. 67, The user interface 122 may include a vibration sensor or touch sensor that detects when a pet taps or touches the door or floor near the door, requesting the pet door 102 be opened).
In regard to claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2 as stated above.
In regard to claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 4 as stated above.
In regard to claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 5 as stated above.
In regard to claim 15, Combination of Altiner, Slavin, and Deng teach the locking device according to claim 10, wherein the processing unit configured further to assign an object type classification to the animal (Altiner, Para. 59, One or more images of known pets may be stored in the memory 112 of the pet access apparatus 10 or in the remote computer 400 to facilitate pet identification and recognition. The processing may take place at controller 104 or at the remote computer 400. As one example, pet recognition may be based on one or more aspects including facial features, iris and retinal features, body shape, color, and markings/patterns, and/or other identifying characteristic to identify the pet within the image); and use the object type classification to verify results of comparing the size of the animal to at least one threshold value and/or the shape of the animal to a reference shape (Altiner, Para. 64, the pet access apparatus 10 may be configured to allow smaller pets to pass through and restrict larger pets or animals from pass through the pet door 102. For example, the pet owner may set a schedule permitting a small dog to pass through the pet door 102 but restricting a large dog from passing through the pet door 102 at a particular time. When the images from the cameras 106, 108 indicate the small dog and the large dog are both proximate the door (on the same side or opposite sides), then the pet access apparatus 10 may open the pet door 102 to a position large enough to permit the small dog to pass through, but inhibiting the large dog from passing through).
In regard to claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 7 as stated above.
In regard to claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 9 as stated above.
In regard to claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 20, Combination of Altiner, Slavin, and Deng teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising: comparing, by a processing unit of the locking device, the shape of the animal to a reference shape to determine whether or not shape limits are met (Altiner, Para. 59, The images captured by cameras 106, 108 may also be processed to identify which pet is within the captured image. One or more images of known pets may be stored in the memory 112 of the pet access apparatus 10 or in the remote computer 400 to facilitate pet identification and recognition); wherein the animal is classified as an authorized animal when the shape limits are met and the animal is classified as an unauthorized animal when shape limits are not met (Altiner, Para. 63, Upon identifying the pet, the controller 104 may determine whether the pet is authorized to pass through the pet door 102. As an example, the pet access apparatus 10 may be programmed to only open the pet door 102 autonomously during certain times (e.g., 8 AM-5 PM). A pet owner may set a different schedule for each of their pets. The pet access apparatus 10 may identify the pet and determine if the pet desiring to pass through the door is allowed to do so based on a schedule, for example, a schedule set by the pet owner. The pet owner may also limit the number of times a particular pet is permitted to pass through the pet door 102 in a predetermined period of time).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner et al. (US20210324672 A1) in view of Slavin (US 9804596 B1) and Deng et al. (US 20060114099 A1) and further in view of Taylor et al. (US 20100307206 A1)
In regard to claim 8, Combination of Altiner, Slavin, and Deng do not teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising interchanging grip structure with other grip structure so that the at least one sensor of the locking device is replaced with another sensor of the same or different type.
However, the concept of having interchangeable sensors is well known in the art as also taught by Taylor. Taylor teaches the control circuit 154 of the door lock 20, shown in FIG. 5, includes software or firmware that is operable to receive a variety of credentials or other signals from a variety of different types of credential readers 48. Thus, the user has the option to purchase a door lock and separately purchase any of a variety of credential readers 48, some of which are illustrated in FIG. 2. The software of the control circuit 154 is configured to recognize the type of credential reader 48 attached to the door lock 20 and thus knows what input to expect from the credential reader 48. For example, if a keypad 76 is attached, the software expects a user code. If a magnetic stripe reader with a built-in keypad 92 is attached, the software may be configured to expect both a user code and a magnetic stripe input. The software is configured to receive a signal, from each of a plurality of different types of credential readers 48 that corresponds to the credential input by the user (Taylor, Fig. 2; Para. 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have interchangeable sensors (as taught by Taylor) in order to allow for the use of virtually any type of credential reader desired.
In regard to claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 8 as stated above.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner et al. (US20210324672 A1) in view of Slavin (US 9804596 B1) and Deng et al. (US 20060114099 A1) and further in view of Bennett et al. (US 20190035183 A1).
In regard to claim 12, Combination of Altiner, Slavin, and Deng teach the locking device according to claim 10, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a capacitive touch sensor (Altiner, Para. 69, The sensor 180 may include, for example, a contact edge sensor, an infrared light beam or light curtain, and/or a capacitance sensor).
Combination of Altiner, Slavin, and Deng do not specifically teach the sensor data specifies a change in capacitance detected by the capacitive touch sensor.
However, Bennett teaches the sensor data specifies a change in capacitance detected by the capacitive touch sensor (Bennett, Para. 4, the user touches a lock which causes a change in measured capacitance, which in turn causes a sensor to search for a received Bluetooth signal from the active credential that indicates authorization to unlock the lock and allow the user to enter the location secured by the lock).
Altiner, Slavin, and Bennett are analogous art because they all pertain to access control system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the sensor data specifies a change in the capacitance (as taught by Bennett) in order to determine the pets paw size, shape, fingerprint, and/or nose print.
Response to Arguments
Response to amended claims is considered above in claim Rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN AKHTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached on (571) 272.2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARMIN AKHTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2689