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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 06/22/2026. Amendments received on 06/22/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski et al. (US Pub 2019/0238355) in view of Kong (US 10,175,737) in view of Schau (US Pub 2009/0313790).
As of claims 1, 12 and 19, A door system comprising: a door jamb (door frame 102; see fig. 1); a door panel (via intelligent door 101; see fig. 2); a power transfer mechanism extending from the door jamb to the edge of the door panel (via disclosing that the intelligent frame 102 is hardwired into a building's electrical system. Such a configuration not only improves the intelligent door system's aesthetics but also prevents disconnection of a power source by accident, and a connector 106 providing power to intelligent door 101 and frame 102 from an exterior source, hence disclosing a power transfer mechanism; see fig. 1; also see paragraphs [0030] and [0060]);
a plurality of electronic components (via multiple components on the door; see fig. 2), wherein the power transfer mechanism is configured to facilitate electrically coupling one or more of the plurality of electronic components to an external power source (via disclosing that the intelligent frame 102 is hardwired into a building's electrical system. Such a configuration not only improves the intelligent door system's aesthetics but also prevents disconnection of a power source by accident, and a connector 106 providing power to intelligent door 101 and frame 102 from an exterior source, hence disclosing a power transfer mechanism; see fig. 1; also see paragraphs [0030] and [0060]), and wherein the plurality of electronic components include:
an electronic locking mechanism (via smart lock 107; see fig. 2; also see paragraph [0034]);
a camera (via camera 113; see fig. 2);
a light (via light; see paragraph [0076]);
a sensor configured to facilitate detecting at least one of sound or activity proximate the door panel (via cameras 113/114, microphone 115, proximity sensors, doorbell, motion detector; see fig. 2; also see paragraphs [0037], [0043]-[0044], [0048] and [0052] and ; and
a backup battery configured to power at least one of the plurality of electronic components in an event of power loss from the external power source (via one or more barriers providing backup power source; see paragraph [0056]); and
a control system configured to: control power provided by the backup battery to the plurality of electronic components such that the backup battery provides power to only a subset of the plurality of electronic components during the event of power loss from the external power source (Examiner indicated in the previous office action Marcinkowski discloses that the barriers provide backup power to intelligent door, even though it does not explicitly state providing power to a subset of the plurality of electronic components but that it would have been an obvious design choice that the installer can use to have certain components that are absolutely require for the function of the intelligent door system in case of power failure; see paragraph [0056]). To support the Examiner’s assertion, Kong discloses a technique of utilizing backup power source, wherein backup power source provides power to only a subset of electronic components (computing systems) during the event of power loss from the primary power source (see fig. 1; also see col. 1, lines 44-65).
From the teaching of Kong, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Marcinkowski to provide backup power to a subset of components as taught by Kong in order to keep high priority components powered during main power failure.
With regard to the limitation of a hinge coupling an edge of the door panel to the door jamb Marcinkowski discloses that the processor 105 is coupled to various mechanical controls 506 including hinges (see paragraph [0076]) and based on fig. 1 it can be seen that the door will be coupled to the frame via hinges. In order to further support the Examiner’s assertion, Schau discloses a door with electric transfer hinge to transfer power to components including locks and cameras (see paragraph [0002]).
From the teaching of Schau it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a power transfer hinge coupled to an edge of the door as taught by Schau to facilitate pivotally coupled the door to a door jamb and facilitating electrically coupling the lock and the camera to an external power source.
As of claims 2, Marcinkowski discloses that the control system is configured to activate at least one of the light or the camera based on the data, wherein the data includes a signal from the sensor indicating that at least one of sound or activity was detected proximate the door panel (via activating the cameras after receiving signal from motion detectors; see paragraph [0052]).
As of claims 3, Marcinkowski discloses that the backup battery is disposed within the door panel (via batteries being included in the door or frame; see paragraphs [0056] and [0074]).
As of claim 4, Marcinkowski discloses that the backup battery is disposed within the door jamb (via batteries being included in the door or frame; see paragraphs [0056] and [0074]).
As of claim 5, Marcinkowski discloses that the intelligent door system comprising a light (see paragraphs [0072], however it does not disclose that the light is positioned along at least a portion of the door panel. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art that the door system comprises a light positioned along at least a portion of door jamb or door panel in order to illuminate the entryway of a house or other building with light that is primarily directed to the door jambs and other parts of the door (see Guarion (US 2008/0013303), abstract; also see paragraphs [0003]-[0005]).
As of claim 6, Marcinkowski discloses that the intelligent door system comprising a light (see paragraphs [0072], however it does not disclose that the light is positioned along at least a portion of the door jamb. The Examiner took official notice that it is well known in the art that the door system comprises a light positioned along at least a portion of door jamb to illuminate the entryway of a house or other building with light that is primarily directed to the door jambs and other parts of the door (see Guarion (US 2008/0013303), abstract; also see paragraph [0003]-[005]). Since applicant did not traverse the official notice the well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03 C).
As of claim 8, Marcinkowski discloses that the electronic locking mechanism coupled to the door panel (via smart lock 107; see fig. 2; also see paragraph [0034]).
As of claim 9, Schau discloses that the power transfer mechanism includes a flexible conduit (see paragraph [0005]).
As of claim 10, Schau discloses that the power transfer mechanism includes an electric transfer hinge (via a door with electric transfer hinge to transfer power to components including locks and cameras (see paragraph [0002]).
As of claim 11, Marcinkowski discloses that the control system is configured to acquire data from one or more of the plurality of electronic components and transmit the data to the server and control one or more of the plurality of electronic components based on the data (via sending data to a server; see paragraph [0057]) and performing one or more functions, such as unlocking, instructing the camera to record for a certain time period upon detection of an event or condition for a certain time period; see paragraph [0094]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski, Kong, Schau and further in view of Wang et al. (US Pub 2006/0156361)
As of claim 7, combination of Marcinkowski, Kong and Schau discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, with regards to the limitation of door panel including a box embedded therein and the camera disposed within the box, the camera 113 embedded in the door (see fig. 2) is interpreted as a camera disposed within a box in the door.
With regards to limitation of door panel including a box, the box including a first electrical connector and a camera disposed within the box, the camera including a second electrical connector that interface with the first electrical connector, Wang discloses a door panel including a junction box 160 including a camera a driver 18 and comprising connectors 182 which connects the camera and the driver 18 (see figs. 2 and 3; also see paragraphs [0022]-[0023] and [0034]). Further a junction box of a camera has connectors where cables from the camera meet and connect to power or network.
From the teaching of Wang it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Marcinkowski and Schau to include a camera disposed within a box as taught by Wang in order to provide a compact housing for the camera.
Claim 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski et al. (US Pub 2019/0238355) in view of Schau (US Pub 2009/0313790) and further in view of Wang et al. (US Pub 2006/0156361)
As of claims 13-16, combination of Marcinkowski and Schau discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claims 1, 3 and 10 above, with regards to the limitation of door panel including a box embedded therein and the camera disposed within the box, the camera 113 embedded in the door (see fig. 2) is interpreted as a camera disposed within a box in the door.
With regards to limitation of door panel including a box, the box including a first electrical connector and a camera disposed within the box, the camera including a second electrical connector that interface with the first electrical connector, Wang discloses a door panel including a junction box 160 including a camera a driver 18 and comprising connectors 182 which connects the camera and the driver 18 (see figs. 2 and 3; also see paragraphs [0022]-[0023] and [0034]). Further a junction box of a camera has connectors where cables from the camera meet and connect to power or network.
From the teaching of Wang it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Marcinkowski and Schau to include a camera disposed within a box as taught by Wang to provide a compact housing for the camera.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski et al., Schau, Wang and further in view of Meyvis (US 6,023,224).
As of claims 17-18, combination of Marcinkowski, Schau and Wong discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 16 above, Marcinkowski further discloses that the user can control the intelligent door system using a user device (see paragraphs [0036] and [0082]. Even though Marcinkowski does not explicitly disclose that the user uses the user device to active the light. The Examiner took official notice that it is well known in the art of access control that a controller configured to control a door and coupled with a camera or lighting system is able to receive a command from a user device to active the lighting system in order to allow a user to remotely control locking/unlocking and lighting system (see Bresson (US Pub 2019/0325681, fig. 2; also see paragraph [0021]). Since applicant did not traverse the official notice the well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03 C).
With regards to limitation of activate at least one of the one or more lights based on a signal received from at least one of the sensor or the camera, Meyvis discloses a door system comprising a motion sensor 42 and light source 38 (see figs. 1 and 2). Meyvis further discloses that the motion sensor activates the light source (see col. 1, lines 59-66).
From the teaching of Meyvis it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Marcinkowski and Schau to activate light based on a signal from a sensor as taught by Meyvis in order to increase the personal safety of a person about to pass through the door.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski et al. (US Pub 2019/0238355) in view of Schau (US Pub 2009/0313790) and further in view of Meyvis (US 6,023,224).
As of claim 20, combination of Marcinkowski and Schau discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, Marcinkowski further discloses that the user can control the intelligent door system using a user device (see paragraphs [0036] and [0082]. Even though Marcinkowski does not explicitly disclose that the user uses the user device to active the light. The Examiner further takes official notice that it is well known in the art of access control that a controller configured to control a door and coupled with a camera or lighting system is able to receive a command from a user device to active the lighting system in order to allow a user to remotely control locking/unlocking and lighting system (see Bresson (US Pub 2019/0325681, fig. 2; also see paragraph [0021]).
With regards to limitation of activate at least one of the one or more lights based on a signal received from at least one of the sensor or the camera, Meyvis discloses a door system comprising a motion sensor 42 and light source 38 (see figs. 1 and 2). Meyvis further discloses that the motion sensor activates the light source (see col. 1, lines 59-66).
From the teaching of Meyvis it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Marcinkowski and Schau to activate light based on a signal from a sensor as taught by Meyvis in order to increase the personal safety of a person about to pass through the door.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights