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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 13, 2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The Terminal Disclaimer, filed April 7, 2026, has been accepted and entered. The previous double patenting rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 13, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-26 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 are noted as amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 11, and 18 have been amended to recite analyzing the at least one image of the installation location and at least one image of the hardware, but the generating steps still recite the generating being in response to the analysis of the installation location. It is recommended amending the step to include the “and the at least one image of the access control hardware” to make it clear that the analysis is the same.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 11, and 18 recite a process, a system for performing the process, and a machine for performing the process, the process including the step of analyzing the at least one image of the bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location for the access control hardware and at least one image of the access control hardware to be installed at the installation location, wherein the analysis includes assessing the access control hardware to be installed is compatible with the installation location prior to installation of the access control hardware based on the analysis of the at least one image of the access control hardware and the at least one image of the bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location; and generating a set of customized installation instructions for the access control hardware at the installation location based on the analysis of the at least one image of the installation location for the access control hardware. The recited steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are analyzing the images, assessing the hardware is compatible with the installation location, and generating a set of instructions based on the analysis of the image. The recited steps, as drafted, are a process that is a method of applying an abstract idea, specifically a mental process (evaluation (assessing if the hardware is compatible), opinion/judgement (analyzing the image; generating a set of customized installation instructions)) and a certain method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior; generating a set of instructions; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (2010)). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 18 recite abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception or meaningfully limit the practice of the judicial exception. The additional elements are a camera, a mobile device comprising a processor and a memory having a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, causes the mobile device to perform the process, the steps being performed by the server, and using one or more computer vision, machine learning, and/or artificial intelligence techniques; and the steps of capturing, by a camera of a mobile device, at least one image of a bare preparation of a door and frame at an installation location for the access control hardware; transmitting, by the mobile device, the at least one image to a server; transmitting, by the server, the set of customized installation instructions for the access control hardware at the installation location to the mobile device; and outputting the customized installation instructions with the mobile device. The additional hardware elements are recited at a high-level of generality amounting to a generic computing device for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, paragraph 0043 of the specification states the computing system may be embodied as a mobile computing device, smart phone, and/or any other computing, processing, and/or communication device capable of performing the functions. As such these hardware limitations are interpreted as merely instructions to apply the judicial exception with a generic computing device. With regard to the use of computer vision, machine learning, and/or artificial intelligence techniques, in part due to the alternative nature of the limitation and the lack of specificity, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality amounting to mere computer code/instructions for performing the step of analyzing the image and fall under the “apply it” grouping. Additionally, the additional steps of capturing at least one image is mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), transmitting data between the mobile device and the server (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) is merely transmitting data over a network, and outputting the instructions is merely outputting the result of the abstract idea. Thereby, the steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Accordingly, the additional elements and steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional steps and hardware elements are insignificant extra-solution activity performed before and after the abstract idea and generic computing components/device and instructions/code used to apply the judicial exception. As the elements are insignificant extra-solution activity and fall under the “apply it” limitation of the judicial exception, the elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, the limitations, taken in combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, individually and/or in combination, because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the practice of the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 18 are not directed to eligible subject matter as they are abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 4-5, 7-10, 13-14, 16-17, and 20-26 are dependent from claims 1, 11, and 18 and include all the limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 4-5, 7-9, 13-14, 16-17, 20, 22-23, and 25-26 under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite further abstract ideas in the form of mental processes (evaluations and observations; analyzing additional images and generating additional instructions) and certain methods of organizing human activity (prompting user feedback) and are thereby not additional elements that can integrate or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of the independent claims. The additional elements of the claims, capturing additional images and transmitting data between the server and mobile device, are insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitation of claims 10, 21, and 24 recite the additional steps of capturing video and outputting the instructions audibly. These steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are insignificant extra-solution activity performed before and after the abstract idea process as the steps are merely data gathering and outputting the results. Therefore, the limitation fails to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
Accordingly, claims 4-5, 7-10, 13-14, 16-17, and 20-26 recite abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-11, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20-26 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittleman et al. (US PGPub 20190385373), hereinafter referred to as Mittleman, in view of Saeedi et al. (US PGPub 20210071440), hereinafter referred to as Saeedi, and further in view of Huh (US PGPub 20200242799).
With regard to claims 1, 11, and 18, Mittleman teaches a method of customized installation of access control hardware [claim 1] (Abstract; Paragraph 0005), a system [claim 11] (Abstract; Paragraph 0006), and a mobile device [claim 18] (Abstract; Paragraph 0006), comprising:
a server (Fig 2B; Paragraph 0084-0085, 0126 teach the images and/or visualizations captured on the mobile device can be uploaded to the server (Ref 164) and the server can perform all functionality of the client/mobile devices);
the mobile device comprising a processor and a memory having a plurality of instructions stored thereon (Abstract; Paragraphs 0006, 0063; mobile computing device);
a camera (Abstract; Paragraph 0006, 0107);
capturing, by a camera of a mobile device, at least one image of an installation location for the access control hardware (Paragraphs 0107, 0113, 0168 teach the user can view and capture the environment through the camera of the mobile computing device of a device installation location);
transmitting, by the mobile device, the at least one image to a server (Fig 2B; Paragraph 0084-0085, 0126 teach the images and/or visualizations captured on the mobile device can be uploaded to the server (Ref 164) and the server can perform all functionality of the client/mobile devices);
analyzing, by the server, the at least one image of the installation location for the access control hardware using one or more of computer vision (Paragraphs 0113, 0190-0191 teach the environment/images are analyzed by computer vision and matching algorithms capable of identifying the captured objects and elements of the installation process to instruct the user during installation), machine learning, and/or artificial intelligence techniques (Paragraphs 0113, 0190-0191 teach the environment/images are analyzed by computer vision and matching algorithms (machine learning) capable of identifying the captured objects and elements of the installation process to instruct the user during installation; examiner notes that the recitation of machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques is recited at a high level of generality and under its broadest reasonable interpretation can include matching algorithms and computer vision which are known AI/ML techniques);
generating, by the server in response to analyzing the at least one image of the installation location for the access control hardware (Paragraphs 0113, 0190-0191 teach the environment/images are analyzed by computer vision and matching algorithms capable of identifying the captured objects and elements of the installation process to instruct the user during installation), a set of customized installation instructions for the access control hardware at the installation location based on the analysis by the server of the at least one image of the installation location for the access control hardware (Fig 24; Paragraphs 0105, 0179, 0188, 0190 teach the system can generate and display visual installation recommendations for the hardware including locations, virtual overlays including internal wall objects and location information, and rendered installation instructions for completing the installation process);
transmitting, by the server, the set of customized installation instructions for the access control hardware at the installation location to the mobile device (Fig 2B; Paragraph 0084-0085, 0126); and
outputting the customized installation instructions with the mobile device (Figs 18B, 24; Paragraphs 0188, 0190, 0193, 0197 teach the system can output the instructions as text or audibly).
Mittleman may not explicitly teach the image being at a bare door prep stage for a door and frame. However, Saeedi teaches an assembly for a locking device including installation instructions that are displayed on a mobile device (Figs 15-16; Paragraphs 0007, 0098).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittleman to incorporate the teachings of Saeedi as both references and the claimed invention are directed to home hardware, specifically locks, installation support devices and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Mittleman to include being capable of capturing images of a door and frame for installation of a lock as both Mittleman (Ref 120) and Saeedi teach locks and displaying instructions for installing the devices. Further, since Mittleman does teach smart locks as one of the smart devices that installations instructions can be generated for, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the additional steps of Saeedi and capture the door and frame in order to properly install the lock. Upon such modification, the system and method of Mittleman would include the image being at a bare prep stage for a door and frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Saeedi with Mittleman’s system and method in order to properly install a smart lock in an appropriate location.
Mittleman in view of Saeedi may not explicitly teach analyzing at least one image of the access control hardware to be installed at the installation location, wherein the analysis includes assessing the access control hardware to be installed is compatible with the installation location prior to installation of the access control hardware based on the analysis of the at least one image of the access control hardware and the at least one image of the bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location. However, Huh teaches a system and method for automating installation of prefabricated parts at a construction site based on an installation plan including determining installation locations in the room and whether the part will proper fit the location (compatible) based on computer/machine vision of captured images including the room/locations and the parts (hardware) to be installed (Abstract; Paragraphs 0021, 0049, 0063, 0076-0077).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittleman in view of Saeedi to incorporate the teachings of Huh as the references and the claimed invention are directed to hardware installation support devices and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Mittleman in view of Saeedi to include analyzing images/video of the environment and the hardware/parts for installation wherein the analysis includes determining if the part/hardware will fit the installation location (compatible) or if the part/hardware is compatible. Upon such modification, the system and method of Mittleman in view of Saeedi would include analyzing at least one image of the access control hardware to be installed at the installation location, wherein the analysis includes assessing the access control hardware to be installed is compatible with the installation location prior to installation of the access control hardware based on the analysis of the at least one image of the access control hardware and the at least one image of the bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Huh with Mittleman in view of Saeedi’s system and method in order to determine if a part/hardware would require alteration to fit the installation location and provide the user better instructions/improve the installation process.
With regard to claims 4 and 13, Mittleman, as modified, further teaches wherein analyzing the at least one image of the bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location (see prior art rejection of claims 1 and 11 above) comprises determining whether a hardware template for drilling holes is in a proper location at the installation location based on the at least one image (Figs 18A, 22A; Paragraphs 0157, 0178 teach the system determining and displaying if the location is an acceptable area for installation of the hardware).
With regard to claims 5 and 14, Mittleman, as modified, further teaches wherein analyzing the at least one image of the bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location (see prior art rejection of claims 1 and 11 above) comprises determining whether an existing hole pattern at the installation location is compatible with a retrofit access control hardware component based on the at least one image (Paragraphs 0104, 0176, 0191 teach the system can identify via the image analysis the existing hardware installations and objects and can identify correct and incorrect installations by comparing the correct installation to the captured installation (compatibility)).
With regard to claims 7 and 16, Mittleman, as modified, further teaches wherein analyzing the at least one image of the bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location (see prior art rejection of claims 1 and 11 above) comprises determining a proper electrical wiring configuration at the installation location for the access control hardware based on the at least one image (Figs 24-29; Paragraphs 0187, 0193 teach the system can detect the wiring configuration at the installation location and update the visualization application to update instructions and guide the user through installation including detecting incorrect wiring configurations including length, connections, quality, and location).
With regard to claim 9, Mittleman in view of Saeedi may not explicitly teach wherein analyzing the at least one image of the bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location comprises determining one or more access control hardware components by identifying one or more parts from a parts kit to be installed at the installation location based on the analysis of the at least one image to use for a particular installation step of the access control hardware, wherein the parts kit includes other parts which are inapplicable at the installation location. However, Huh further teaches the system can analyze the captured images of the room and hardware including scanning a plurality of parts (parts kit) and recognizing a part from the plurality of parts based on object recognition and identifying if the part matches the current order/step in an installation order wherein the system can identify if the part does not match the installation order or is an incorrect part (inapplicable part for the installation order/location) and provide a notification including the correct part to select (Paragraphs 0042-0045).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittleman in view of Saeedi to incorporate the teachings of Huh as the references and the claimed invention are directed to hardware installation support devices and methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Mittleman in view of Saeedi to include analyzing images/video of the environment and the hardware/parts for installation including a plurality of parts (parts kit), scanning the parts, and identifying the parts using object recognition including identifying if the part is the correct part for a current step in an installation instruction or if the part is an incorrect part either for the step or does not match the installation order/instructions (inapplicable) and notifying the user of the correct part to select/use for the current/particular step and updating the instructions accordingly. Upon such modification, the system and method of Mittleman in view of Saeedi would include wherein analyzing the at least one image of the bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location comprises determining one or more access control hardware components by identifying one or more parts from a parts kit to be installed at the installation location based on the analysis of the at least one image to use for a particular installation step of the access control hardware, wherein the parts kit includes other parts which are inapplicable at the installation location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Huh with Mittleman in view of Saeedi’s system and method in order to determine if a part/hardware is the correct part for the step in the instructions, improve the installation process by preventing incorrect parts from being used/installed, and provide the user better instructions and performance.
With regard to claim 10, Mittleman, as modified, further teaches wherein capturing the at least one image comprises capturing video of the installation location (Paragraphs 0147, 0184, 0198, 0202 teach the system captures real-time views and live video feed from the smart phone (user mobile device) during the installation process).
With regard to claim 20, Mittleman, as modified, further teaches wherein to analyze the at least one image of the bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location (see prior art rejection of claims 1 and 11 above) comprises utilizing computer vision (Paragraphs 0113, 0190-0191 teach the environment/images are analyzed by computer vision and matching algorithms capable of identifying the captured objects and elements of the installation process to instruct the user during installation) to determine at least one of: whether a hardware template is in a proper location at the installation location (Figs 18A, 22A; Paragraphs 0157, 0178 teach the system determining and displaying if the location is an acceptable area for installation of the hardware); whether an existing hole pattern at the installation location is compatible with a retrofit access control hardware component (Paragraphs 0104, 0176, 0191 teach the system can identify via the image analysis the existing hardware installations and objects and can identify correct and incorrect installations by comparing the correct installation to the captured installation (compatibility)); a proper electrical wiring configuration at the installation location for the access control hardware (Figs 24-29; Paragraphs 0187, 0193 teach the system can detect the wiring configuration at the installation location and update the visualization application to update instructions and guide the user through installation including detecting incorrect wiring configurations including length, connections, quality, and location); or a wireless communication environment of a physical environment of the installation location (Fig 8; Paragraphs 0102-0104, 0138 teach the system provides a field of view (Ref 806) that shows the communication strength and effective communication range from a base device to assist in installing the hardware devices in the physical environment and identifies external interferences with the wireless communication).
With regard to claims 21, 24, and 26, Mittleman, as modified, further teaches wherein outputting the customized installation instructions includes outputting audible customized installation instructions via speaker of the mobile device (Paragraph 0193 teaches the system can output the instructions audibly via a speaker).
With regard to claim 22, Mittleman, as modified, further teaches further comprising: prompting the user to indicate whether additional feedback is needed (Paragraphs 0199-0202 teach the system includes an error-checking feature which a user can select (prompted) for checking the installation (additional feedback)); and in response to additional feedback being needed, capturing, by the camera of the mobile device, one or more additional images of the installation location of the access control hardware (Paragraphs 0107, 0113, 0168, 0200-0201 teach the user can view and capture the environment through the camera of the mobile computing device of a device installation location including during the error checking process wherein the application can analyze the captured images to check the installation).
With regard to claim 23, Mittleman, as modified, further teaches further comprising: analyzing, by the server, the one or more additional images of the installation location for the access control hardware using one or more computer vision (Paragraphs 0113, 0190-0191, 0200 teach the environment/images are analyzed by computer vision and matching algorithms capable of identifying the captured objects and elements of the installation process to instruct the user during installation and during an error-checking process), machine learning, and/or artificial intelligence techniques (Paragraphs 0113, 0190-0191, 0200 teach the environment/images are analyzed by computer vision and matching algorithms (machine learning) capable of identifying the captured objects and elements of the installation process to instruct the user during installation; examiner notes that the recitation of machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques is recited at a high level of generality and under its broadest reasonable interpretation can include matching algorithms and computer vision which are known AI/ML techniques); and generating and transmitting (Fig 2B; Paragraph 0084-0085, 0126 teach the images and/or visualizations captured on the mobile device can be uploaded to the server (Ref 164) and the server can perform all functionality of the client/mobile devices), by the server in response to analyzing the one or more additional images of the installation location for the access control hardware, a further set of customized installation instructions for the access control hardware at the installation location based on the analysis by the server of the one or more additional images of the installation location for the access control hardware for output with the mobile device (Fig 24; Paragraphs 0105, 0179, 0188, 0190, 0200-0201 teach the system can generate and display visual installation recommendations and instructions including providing additional instructions based on the error-checking feature (further set of instructions) based on the image analysis).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittleman in view of Saeedi and Huh, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chatelain et al. (US PGPub 20170280332), hereinafter referred to as Chatelain.
With regard to claim 8, Mittleman, as modified, further teaches further comprising capturing at least one additional image of the installation location and its vicinity and analyzing the at least one additional image using computer vision to determine a wireless communication environment of a physical environment of the installation location based on the at least one additional image (Fig 8; Paragraphs 0102-0104, 0136, 0138, 0144 teach the system provides a field of view (Ref 806) that shows the communication strength and effective communication range from a base device to assist in installing the hardware devices in the physical environment and identifies external interferences with the wireless communication wherein the analysis is based in part on computer vision algorithms analyzing the captured images of the environment including the smart-home device (installation location and the vicinity)), but Mittleman in view of Saeedi and Huh may not explicitly teach further comprising continuously learning features likely to result in signal interference based on at least the wireless communication environment of the physical environment of the installation location. However, Chatelain teaches a method for using machine learning models to determine signal strength for computing devices including determining interference from physical items (Paragraphs 0039, 0042).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittleman in view of Saeedi and Huh to incorporate the teachings of Chatelain. While the prior arts are in different fields of endeavor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the techniques taught by Chatelain for determining signal strength and interference using machine learning models to the similar system of Mittleman that includes determining where to place devices for effective wireless communication including identifying interference sources in order to improve Mittleman in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Mittleman in view of Saeedi and Huh to include using machine learning models to analyze the sources of interference and update the models based on the ongoing signal strength. Upon such modification, the system and method of Mittleman in view of Saeedi and Huh would include further comprising continuously learning features likely to result in signal interference based on at least the wireless communication environment of the physical environment of the installation location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chatelain with Mittleman in view of Saeedi and Huh’s system and method in order to improve device setup by using data-driven decisions (Chatelain Paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 17, Mittleman, as modified, further teaches wherein the camera is configured to capture at least one additional image of the installation location and its vicinity and the server is configured to receive the at least one additional image from the mobile device and analyze the at least one additional image using machine learning to determine a wireless communication environment of a physical environment of the installation location based on the at least one image (Fig 8; Paragraphs 0102-0104, 0136, 0138, 0144 teach the system provides a field of view (Ref 806) that shows the communication strength and effective communication range from a base device to assist in installing the hardware devices in the physical environment and identifies external interferences with the wireless communication wherein the analysis is based in part on computer vision algorithms (which are known as a type of machine learning) analyzing the captured images of the environment including the smart-home device (installation location and the vicinity)), but Mittleman in view of Saeedi and Huh may not explicitly teach further comprising continuously learning features likely to result in signal interference based on at least the wireless communication environment of the physical environment of the installation location. However, Chatelain teaches a method for using machine learning models to determine signal strength for computing devices including determining interference from physical items (Paragraphs 0039, 0042).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mittleman in view of Saeedi and Huh to incorporate the teachings of Chatelain. While the prior arts are in different fields of endeavor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the techniques taught by Chatelain for determining signal strength and interference using machine learning models to the similar system of Mittleman that includes determining where to place devices for effective wireless communication including identifying interference sources in order to improve Mittleman in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Mittleman in view of Saeedi and Huh to include using machine learning models to analyze the sources of interference and update the models based on the ongoing signal strength. Upon such modification, the system and method of Mittleman in view of Saeedi and Huh would include further comprising continuously learning features likely to result in signal interference based on at least the wireless communication environment of the physical environment of the installation location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chatelain with Mittleman in view of Saeedi and Huh’s system and method in order to improve device setup by using data-driven decisions (Chatelain Paragraph 0002).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed May 13, 2026, on pages 10-16, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-26 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments on pages 10-12 are largely a summary of cited case law and Office Guidance but do not make any argument on the merits, such that there is nothing substantive for the examiner to rebut. Applicant’s substantiative arguments are: A) the interpretation of the claims is unreasonably broad, specifically the language “requiring a camera of a mobile device to capture at least one image” and the analysis of the image (Page 13), B) a conclusory statement that the “pending claims, when considered as a whole, has clearly been integrated into a practical application” (Pages 13-14), and C) a conclusory statement that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea as the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each of the features recited in the claims (Page 14-16). With regard to Applicant’s Argument A, Examiner notes the argument is persuasive in part in that the capturing of an image may have been interpreted overly broadly, but even under a narrower interpretation, the limitation is mere data gathering using a generic computing device as discussed above and in view of MPEP 2106.05. The analysis of the image, as with many of the limitations in the claims, does not recite specific steps or limitations in the claims for performing the analysis in a way that can be narrowly interpretated to completely avoid interpretation as a mental process. The specification, in paragraph 0041, does recite various filters and algorithms for performing the techniques/analysis, but the specific algorithms are not claimed, and even if interpreted unreasonably narrowly to be a specific algorithmic analysis, the limitation would need to recite specific steps or limitations for applying the algorithm to amount to more than implementation/instructions for performing the method on a generic computing device. The lack of specific steps and limitations is evidence of the high level recitation and reasonable interpretation as any form of analysis including mental processes such as evaluating the image but for the recitation of implementation on a generic computing device as discussed above. Therefore, the limitations have not been interpreted overly broadly and do recite judicial exceptions under their broadest reasonable interpretation as discussed above.
With regard to Argument B, Argument B recites summary of the relevant case law and is a conclusory statement such that there is nothing substantive for the examiner to rebut as Examiner considered the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination and determined, as discussed above, the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter as the claims recite judicial exceptions and the additional elements fail to amount to a integration into a practical application or significantly more as the additional elements are generic computing components and steps recognized by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) as insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional (transmitting data over a network and outputting the results of a process). Similarly, with regard to Argument C, Examiner notes that, per MPEP 2106.05, the eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is separate and distinct from the patentability analysis under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art as patentability under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103, “the prior art of record failing to teach or suggest each of the features recited in the pending claims”, is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Further, it is noted that the claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as discussed above, and the limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine, and conventional as recognized by the courts per MPEP 2106.05(d) and (g) regardless of the teachings of the prior art. Therefore, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed May 13, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive by virtue of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the newly cited combination of prior art discussed above.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20-26 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm 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, Kang Hu can be reached on (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights