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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Sorice US 20210207420.
Regarding claim 1, Sorice meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door, comprising: a door slab (i.e. door 14) [fig. 1],
wherein the door slab includes at least one hollow cavity housing a plurality of at least partially internal devices or components, the devices or components including plural electrical devices or components (i.e. door 14 may be hollow and have components inside) [22,26,67; fig. 1,7], and
wherein a process operatively connected to a controller is configured to provide a first user interface configured to provide selectable settings for at least one device or component configured to provision at least one hardware component for at least one ecosystem partner and allowing for customization thereof according to the requirements of the at least one ecosystem partner or a user (i.e. controller 58 controls device through a smartphone app and allows for customization) [41,45,46,65].
Regarding claim 2, Sorice meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 1, wherein the plural devices or components is two or more of: an electronic access control; a door state sensor; an entry camera with video; an audio communication unit; an audio or video doorbell; a digital camera; a light; a motion detector or sensor; a proximity sensor; a door opener; heating and cooling thermostat controls; alarm sensor or controls; lighting; household or automobile batteries; or automotive controls (i.e. video doorbell, door latch 30, hallway light 36 4, proximity sensor 62) [27].
Regarding claim 3, Sorice meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 1, wherein the first user interface is configured according to a first ecosystem partner software that is connected to the controller via internet connectivity (i.e. smartphone app uses cloud integration) [65].
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 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.
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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 4-11,39-42, 44, 46, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorice in view of Anderson US 20220319264.
Regarding claim 4, Sorice meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 1, wherein the first user interface is in communication with the first ecosystem partner software via a first ecosystem in communication with the controller via a communications network (i.e. smartphone app uses cloud integration. This would involve a server that would have some software.) [65].
Sorice do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
via a first ecosystem server in communication with the controller via a communications network
However, in the same field of endeavor Anderson discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
via a first ecosystem server in communication with the controller via a communications network (i.e. door server and camera server work together to operate the door and camera) [129,133].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sorice with Anderson to have a second ecosystem partner, a second ecosystem server, a second user interface and a second device, wherein the second user interface establishes settings for the second device to operatively connect the second device to the second ecosystem partner, allowing operability of the second device through services provided by the second ecosystem partner.
It would be advantageous because "Electronic entry door features, such as electronic door locks (e.g., push button, biometric sensor, RFID reader), intercoms, cameras, motion sensors, and lighting, have been provided as modular, battery powered solutions for installation on or near an entry door, to provide additional security and convenience, and may, for example, provide for remote communication with a user (e.g., homeowner, business owner, resident, or employee), for example, through wireless communication (e.g., Wi-Fi or cellular) with the user's cell phone, tablet, or computer” [2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Sorice with Anderson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Sorice meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 4, wherein at least two configuration settings are displayed in the first user interface according to first ecosystem partner specifications (i.e. smartphone app uses cloud integration. This would involve multiple user settable options) [65].
Regarding claim 6, Sorice meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 4, wherein the first user interface is configured to communicate selections made in the first user interface to the first ecosystem partner server via the communications network (i.e. smartphone app allow customization and this would involve communication to another partner device) [54-59, 65].
Regarding claim 7, Sorice meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 6, wherein the first user interface establishes settings for the at least one device to operatively connect the at least one device to the first ecosystem partner, allowing operability of the at least one device through services provided by the first ecosystem partner (i.e. smartphone app allow customization and this would involve communication to another partner device and allowing operability (turning on/off)) [54-59, 65].
Regarding claim 8, Anderson meets the claim limitations, as follows:
a second ecosystem partner, a second ecosystem server, a second user interface and a second device, wherein the second user interface establishes settings for the second device to operatively connect the second device to the second ecosystem partner, allowing operability of the second device through services provided by the second ecosystem partner (i.e. door server and camera server work together to operate the door and camera) [129,133].
Claim 8 is combined using similar rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, Anderson meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 8, further comprising a third ecosystem partner, a third ecosystem server, a third user interface and a third device, wherein the third user interface establishes settings for the third device to operatively connect the third device to the third ecosystem partner, allowing operability of the third device through services provided by the third ecosystem partner (i.e. door server and camera server work together to operate the door and camera. Third device could be locking system, camera system, controller, router) [129,133,138].
Claim 9 is combined using similar rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, Sorice meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 7, wherein the at least one device comprises a discrete component of the overall device associated with the at least one device (i.e. video doorbell, door latch 30, hallway light 36 4, proximity sensor 62 have discete components of the device) [27].
Regarding claim 11, Sorice meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 10, wherein the discrete component comprises one or more of: a camera unit, a microphone, a locking or latching component, a lighting component, an access component, and an alarm or security component (i.e. video doorbell, door latch 30, hallway light 36 4, proximity sensor 62 have discrete components of the device) [27].
Regarding claim 39, Anderson meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to automatically recognize the at least one hardware component and automatically provision the at least one hardware component for the at least one ecosystem partner (i.e. automatically register components of the door system) [119].
Claim 39 is combined using similar rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 40, Anderson meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to update firmware of the at least one hardware component to provision the at least one hardware component for the at least one ecosystem partner, and wherein the firmware update enables the at least one hardware component to communicate with a server of the at least one ecosystem partner (i.e. update firmware) [133].
Claim 40 is combined using similar rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 41, Anderson meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least one hardware component includes core firmware programmed therein, and wherein the controller is configured to update the core firmware to enable compatibility with the at least one ecosystem partner (i.e. firmware updates performed on the door system) [133].
Claim 41 is combined using similar rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 42, Sorice meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to switch the at least one hardware component from a first ecosystem partner to a second ecosystem partner by updating firmware of the at least one hardware component without replacing the at least one hardware component (i.e. if a camera of one brand is changed to another brand it would necessarily change the ecosystem that it connects to) [46].
Regarding claim 44, Anderson meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least one hardware component comprises a camera component, and wherein the first user interface is configured to provide custom settings for the camera component including at least one of color settings, hue settings, frame rate settings, and camera function settings, wherein the custom settings are configured to be compatible with requirements of the at least one ecosystem partner (i.e. entry camera can be activated when activity is detected by another system. This would include a camera function setting) [27].
Claim 44 is combined using similar rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 46, Anderson meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to update firmware of the at least one hardware component according to brand requirements of the at least one ecosystem partner to enable operability of the at least one hardware component with services provided by the at least one ecosystem partner (i.e. firmware updates performed on the door system. Firmware updates would be performed according to brand requirements) [133].
Claim 46 is combined using similar rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 47, Sorice meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to provide a centralized door system interface that allows a user to interact with plural devices provisioned for plural ecosystem partners without requiring separate applications for each of the plural ecosystem partners (i.e. web based application can be used to control other installed electronic features.) [47].
Claim(s) 38 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorice and Anderson in view of Knouse US 20220110008.
Regarding claim 38, Anderson disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the controller is further configured to connect to a cloud server of the at least one ecosystem partner to pull data for at least one of installation, configuration, or update of the at least one hardware component (i.e. server used to manage the operation of the connected devices) [129,133]
Sorice and Anderson do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the controller is further configured to connect to an IoT ecosystem cloud server of the at least one ecosystem partner to pull data for at least one of installation, configuration, or update of the at least one hardware component
However, in the same field of endeavor Knouse discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the controller is further configured to connect to an IoT ecosystem cloud server of the at least one ecosystem partner to pull data for at least one of installation, configuration, or update of the at least one hardware component (i.e. IOT device network can use a server for two way communication. This would involve configuration of the devices) [48,51,115].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sorice and Anderson with Knouse to have the controller is further configured to connect to an IoT ecosystem cloud server of the at least one ecosystem partner to pull data for at least one of installation, configuration, or update of the at least one hardware component.
It would be advantageous because “User devices may be able to access the wide-area mesh network to send messages, without requiring specialized hardware and/or software.” [4].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Sorice and Anderson with Knouse to obtain the invention as specified in claim 38.
Claim 45 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 38 and further below.
Sorice meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A door in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least one hardware component is configured to be removably inserted into a slot in the door slab, wherein insertion of the at least one hardware component into the slot automatically connects the at least one hardware component to a wiring harness or pin connector, and wherein the controller is configured to automatically recognize the at least one hardware component upon connection and to access an IoT ecosystem to pull data to enable the at least one hardware component (i.e. electronic devices removably plugged into the door in prewired receptacle 65.) [46].
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorice and Anderson in view of Finnegan US 20190132396.
Regarding claim 43, Sorice and Anderson do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the controller is configured to automatically detect a need for update of the at least one hardware component for operability or improvement with the at least one ecosystem partner, and automatically initiate provisioning of the at least one hardware component.
However, in the same field of endeavor Finnegan discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the controller is configured to automatically detect a need for update of the at least one hardware component for operability or improvement with the at least one ecosystem partner, and automatically initiate provisioning of the at least one hardware component (i.e. automatically updating firmware of accessory in smart home.) [3].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sorice and Anderson with Finnegan to have the controller is configured to automatically detect a need for update of the at least one hardware component for operability or improvement with the at least one ecosystem partner, and automatically initiate provisioning of the at least one hardware component.
It would be advantageous because automating an activity is a routine method of increase efficiency of a system.
In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.) [MPEP 2144.04.III]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Sorice and Anderson with Finnegan to obtain the invention as specified in claim 43.
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: 8:00 - 4:30 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