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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng (US 20140099991 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device in a locked state, one or more wireless signals (The first antenna ant1 and second antennas ant2, positioned on an upper half section and a lower half section of the phone body, respectively, transmit and receive Radio Frequency (RF) signals for a wireless communication. When a user holds the smart phone 1, the user's hand may cover the position(s) of the antenna(s) where the RF signals are picked up, resulting in a reduced received signal strength and decreased antenna sensitivity. Consequently, the smart phone 1 can determine that the position of the hand on the phone body by detecting the antenna which exhibits a reduced received signal strength or decreased antenna sensitivity by a certain signal level, Para. 17);
determining a reduction in a signal strength of the one or more wireless signals satisfies a threshold; and changing, based on the reduction in the signal strength of the one or more wireless signals satisfying the threshold, the locked state to an unlocked state (Based on the determined information of the hand position, the body motion and the nearby object, the smart phone 1 can automatically launch various phone functions and applications, such as a screen unlock, Para. 17).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng discloses determining a change in reflection (detect changes of reflection by its light sensor, Para. 24).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng discloses determining a change in a received signal strength associated with the one or more wireless signals (Para. 17).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng discloses determining, based on an attenuation of the one or more wireless signals satisfying the threshold, a presence of a user (via user presence detected as near phone based on reduced signal strength of signals received, Para. 17);
and determining, based on the presence of the user, a location of the user (near the phone, Para. 17).
Claim(s) 15-23, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bultan (US 20190033446 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Bultan discloses a method comprising:
determining a variance in a signal characteristic of a wireless signal received by a wireless device (via detection of robber 456 via WiFi identification, Para. 51, 36);
receiving a user input (via unauthorized entry, Para. 51); and
associating, based on the user input, the variance in the signal characteristic of the wireless signal received by the wireless device with a user profile (intruder as a robber, Para. 51).
Regarding claim 21, Bultan discloses a method comprising:
detecting an attempt to change a state of a wireless device (intrusion detection of smart home, Para. 51);
based on detecting the attempt to change the state of the wireless device, determining a change in a signal characteristic of one or more wireless signals received by the wireless device (When the robber 456 is detected approaching the house at location “a” via either or both the acoustic and WiFi spatial maps generated by the smart transceiver, Para. 51);
determining, based on the change in the signal characteristic of the one or more wireless signals, a user profile (the smart transceiver categorizes that person as an intruder because there is no corresponding identification/authentication record in the identification table 409, Para. 51); and
changing, based on the user profile, the state of the wireless device (smart home in security mode to assist police based on identification of robber, Para. 51).
Regarding claim 16, 22, Bultan discloses wherein the wireless device comprises one or more of: a smart lock, a smart refrigerator, a smart kitchen appliance, or a smart television (via wireless smart lock, Para. 36).
Regarding claim 17, Bultan discloses changing, based on the user profile, a state of the wireless device (smart device in security mode to assist police based on identification of robber, Para. 51).
Regarding claim 18, Bultan discloses determining, based on the variance in the signal characteristic, a state of the wireless device (smart device in security mode to assist police based on identification of robber, Para. 51).
Regarding claim 19, Bultan discloses determining a second variance in the signal characteristic of the wireless signal; and changing, based on the second variance the signal characteristic of the wireless signal, the state of the wireless device (The presence and identity of the cat 476 is detected by the smart, transceiver in the processing of its successive composite spatial diagnostic maps. No alarm is sounded because the cat is the family pet, as indicated by its matching WiFi and acoustic identification record in identification table 409, Para. 51).
Regarding claim 20, 23, Bultan discloses wherein the state is one or more of: a locked state, a power-on state, an alarmed state, an unlocked state, a power-off state, or an unarmed state (alarmed stated indicated by security mode, Para. 51).
Regarding claim 25, Bultan discloses wherein preventing the attempt to change the state of the wireless device comprises entering a non-dynamic state (No alarm is sounded because the cat is the family pet, as indicated by its matching WiFi and acoustic identification record in identification table 409, Para. 51).
Regarding claim 26, Bultan discloses sending, based on the attempt to change the state of the wireless device, an alert (smart transceiver issues another warning, that it has automatically called the police 466, Para. 51).
Regarding claim 27, Bultan discloses determining a change in the signal characteristic of the one or more wireless signals (WiFi identification, Para. 51).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, and further in view of Wu (US 20150379795 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Cheng fails to disclose wherein the wireless device comprises a smart lock.
Wu teaches a wireless smart lock configured to sense a user based on signal changes to allow automatic unlocking (Para. 39).
From the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng to include wherein the wireless device comprises a smart lock in order to improve convenience of unlocking a lock.
Claim(s) 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, and further in view of Bultan (US 20190033446 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng teaches the signal strength of the wireless signal comprises a received signal strength indication (by detecting the antenna which exhibits a reduced received signal strength, Para. 17), but fails to specifically disclose the one or more wireless signals comprises a Wi-Fi signal.
It is well known in the art to one of ordinary skill that phones are equipped with transceivers to send and receive Wi-Fi signals in a home. Bultan teaches an example of a phone configured to communicate Wi-Fi signals (Para. 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng to include the one or more wireless signals comprises a Wi-Fi signal as Wi-Fi signals are commonly sent and received by phones in a home.
Regarding claim 7, Cheng fails to disclose determining, based on an attenuation of the one or more wireless signals satisfying the threshold, an identity of a user; and determining, based on the attenuation of the one or more wireless signals satisfying the threshold, a class of the user.
Bultan teaches a system to determine an identity and class of a user based on attenuation of one or more wireless signals satisfying a threshold (When the robber 456 is detected approaching the house at location “a” via either or both the acoustic and WiFi spatial maps generated by the smart transceiver the smart transceiver categorizes that person as an intruder because there is no corresponding identification/authentication record in the identification table 409, Para. 51, 29).
From the teachings of Bultan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng to include determining, based on an attenuation of the one or more wireless signals satisfying the threshold, an identity of a user; and determining, based on the attenuation of the one or more wireless signals satisfying the threshold, a class of the user in order to prevent unauthorized use of the wireless device, thereby improve security.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bultan, and further in view of Child (US 20140267716 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Bultan fails to disclose wherein detecting the attempt to change the state of the wireless device comprises determining one or more: a user interface input, a lever grasp, a handle grasp, or a knob grasp.
Child teaches a home security system including sensors to detect intruders, wherein a handle can be configured to include one of the sensors (Para. 49, 35, 66).
From the teachings of Child, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bultan to include wherein detecting the attempt to change the state of the wireless device comprises determining a handle grasp in order to detect presence of intruders, thereby improve security.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 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 Goins Feild can be reached at (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 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689