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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 18, 2025 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, claims 2-3, 6, 12, 15, and 19 are noted as cancelled, and claims 21-26 are noted as newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all previous objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 28, 2025 and all objections and rejections therein have been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,100,205. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations of claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-13 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,100,205 per the table below.
Instant Application
US 12,100,205
1. A method of customized installation of access control hardware, the method comprising:
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;
analyzing, by the server, the at least one image of the bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location for the access control hardware using one or more computer vision, machine learning, and/or artificial intelligence techniques;
generating, by the server in response to analyzing the at least one image of the installation location for the access control hardware, 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;
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.
1. A method of customized installation of access control hardware by using machine learning, the method comprising:
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 that is to receive access control hardware;
transmitting, by the mobile device, the at least one image to a server;
analyzing, by the server, the at least one image of the installation location for the access control hardware using computer vision;
generating, by the server in response to analyzing the at least one image captured by the camera, a set of customized installation instructions for the access control hardware at the installation location based on machine learning of the installation location different from the computer vision;
transmitting, by the server, the set of customized installation instructions for the access control hardware at the installation location to the mobile device; and
displaying the customized installation instructions on a graphical user interface of the mobile device.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the at least one image 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.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the at least one image 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.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the at least one image 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 or determining a backset at the installation location based on the at least one image.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the at least one image 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.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the at least one image comprises determining a backset at the installation location based on the at least one image.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the at least one image comprises determining a proper electrical wiring configuration at the installation location for the access control hardware based on the at least one image.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the at least one image comprises determining a proper electrical wiring configuration at the installation location for the access control hardware based on the at least one image.
8. The method of claim 3, wherein analyzing the at least one image comprises determining a wireless communication environment of a physical environment of the installation location based on the at least one image; and
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.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the at least one image comprises determining a wireless communication environment of a physical environment of the installation location based on the at least one image; and
further comprising continuously learning features that result in signal interference based on at least the wireless communication environment of the physical environment of the installation location.
9. The method of claim 3, wherein analyzing the at least one image comprises determining one or more access control hardware components of a plurality of access control hardware components in a parts kit captured in the at least one image to use for a particular installation step of the access control hardware.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the at least one image comprises determining one or more access control hardware components of a plurality of access control hardware components in a parts kit captured in the at least one image to use for a particular installation step of the access control hardware.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein capturing the at least one image comprises capturing video of the installation location.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein capturing the at least one image comprises capturing video of the installation location.
11. A system, comprising:
a camera configured to capture at least one image of a bare preparation of a door and frame at an installation location for access control hardware;
a server; and
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
receive the at least one image of the installation location captured by the camera and transmit the at least one image of the installation location to the server;
wherein the server is configured to:
receive the at least one image from the mobile device;
analyze the at least one image of the door and frame at the installation location for the access control hardware using one or more computer vision, machine learning, and/or artificial intelligence techniques;
generate, in response to analysis of the at least one image of the installation location for the access control hardware, 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; and
transmit the set of customized installation instructions to the mobile device; and
wherein the plurality of instructions further causes the mobile device to output the customized installation instructions.
9. A system, comprising:
a camera configured to capture at least one image of a bare preparation of a door and a frame at an installation location that is to receive access control hardware;
a server; and
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
receive the at least one image captured by the camera and transmit the at least one image to the server;
wherein the server is configured to:
receive the at least one image from the mobile device;
analyze the at least one image using computer vision;
generate, in response to analysis of the at least one image using computer vision, a set of customized installation instructions for the access control hardware at the installation location based on machine learning of the installation location different from the computer vision; and
transmit the set of customized installation instructions to the mobile device; and
wherein the plurality of instructions further causes the mobile device to display the customized installation instructions on a graphical user interface of the mobile device.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein to analyze the at least one image comprises to determine whether a hardware template is in a proper location at the installation location.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein to analyze the at least one image comprises to determine whether a hardware template is in a proper location at the installation location.
14. The system of claim 11, wherein to analyze the at least one image comprises to determine whether an existing hole pattern at the installation location is compatible with a retrofit access control hardware component.
11. The system of claim 9, wherein to analyze the at least one image comprises to determine whether an existing hole pattern at the installation location is compatible with a retrofit access control hardware component.
16. The system of claim 11, wherein to analyze the at least one image comprises to determine a proper electrical wiring configuration at the installation location for the access control hardware.
13. The system of claim 9, wherein to analyze the at least one image comprises to determine a proper electrical wiring configuration at the installation location for the access control hardware.
18. A mobile device, comprising:
a camera configured to capture at least one image of a bare preparation for a door and a frame and an installation location for access control hardware;
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:
receive the at least one image of the installation location captured by the camera;
analyze the at least one image of the bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location for the access control hardware using one or more computer vision, machine learning, and/or artificial intelligence techniques;
generate, in response to analysis of the at least one image of the installation location for the access control hardware, 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; and
output the customized installation instructions.
15. A mobile device, comprising:
a camera configured to capture at least one image of a bare preparation for a door and a frame and an installation location that is to receive access control hardware;
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:
receive the at least one image captured by the camera;
analyze the at least one image using computer vision;
generate, in response to analysis of the at least one image of the installation location using computer vision, a set of customized installation instructions for the access control hardware at the installation location based on machine learning of the installation location different from the computer vision; and
display the customized installation instructions on a graphical user interface of the mobile device.
20. The mobile device of claim 18, wherein to analyze the at least one image comprises to determine at least one of:
whether a hardware template is in a proper location at the installation location;
whether an existing hole pattern at the installation location is compatible with a retrofit access control hardware component;
a proper electrical wiring configuration at the installation location for the access control hardware; or
a wireless communication environment of a physical environment of the installation location.
16. The mobile device of claim 15, wherein to analyze the at least one image comprises to determine at least one of:
whether a hardware template is in a proper location at the installation location;
whether an existing hole pattern at the installation location is compatible with a retrofit access control hardware component;
a proper electrical wiring configuration at the installation location for the access control hardware; or
a wireless communication environment of a physical environment of the installation location.
In view of the table above, it is clear that all of the limitations of claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-13 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent 12,100,205. While the limitations of the patent are not identical limitations, the limitations of the patent are merely more specific and thereby teach all limitations of the instant application by reciting a “species” of the more “generic” application limitations. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species (see In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With regards to the recitation in claims 1, 11, and 18, the claims of the patent recite the image is of the “bare preparation of the door and frame at the installation location” so the recitation of the instant application of the image being of the installation location is anticipated. Further, the patent reciting the image being analyzed using computer vision and the instructions generated based on machine learning anticipates the instant claims as the generation and analysis is performed by the server and the instant application recitations are broader. Additionally, the instant application recites “outputting” the instructions which, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes displaying the instructions as recited in the patent which is therefore anticipated by the patent recitation. Since claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20 of the application are anticipated by claims 1-13 and 15-16 of the patent, the application claims are not patentably distinct.
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 capturing at least one image of a bare preparation of a door and frame at an installation location for the access control hardware; 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 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 capturing an image of an installation location, analyzing the image, 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 (observation (capturing an image) and opinion/judgement (analyzing the image; generating a set of customized installation instructions)) and a certain method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior; 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 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 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, 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.
In regards 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.
In regards to claims 4 and 13, Mittleman further teaches wherein analyzing the at least one image 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).
In regards to claims 5 and 14, Mittleman further teaches wherein analyzing the at least one image 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)).
In regards to claims 7 and 16, Mittleman further teaches wherein analyzing the at least one image 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).
In regards to claim 9, Mittleman further teaches wherein analyzing the at least one image comprises determining one or more access control hardware components of a plurality of access control hardware components in a parts kit captured in the at least one image to use for a particular installation step of the access control hardware (Figs 21, 24; Paragraphs 0169, 0171, 0180, 0191 teach the system includes scanning devices used in conjunction with the camera, the system capable of identifying objects including studs, wiring, outlets, environmental objects, and screws and updating the instructions accordingly based on the determined objects and components such as the wiring and identifying the device/hardware being installed among the connected system of devices).
In regards to claim 10, Mittleman 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).
In regards to claim 20, Mittleman further teaches wherein to analyze the at least one image comprises 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).
In regards to claims 21, 24, and 26, Mittleman 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).
In regards to claim 22, Mittleman 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).
In regards to claim 23, Mittleman 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, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chatelain et al. (US PGPub 20170280332), hereinafter referred to as Chatelain.
In regards to claims 8 and 17, Mittleman further teaches wherein analyzing the at least one image comprises determining a wireless communication environment of a physical environment of the installation location based on the at least one image (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), but Mittleman in view of Saeedi 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 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 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 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’s system and method in order to improve device setup by using data-driven decisions (Chatelain Paragraph 0002).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 under Double Patenting and 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the Double Patenting rejection, Examiner notes the rejection is not provisional as the cited patent has been issued and published. Further, Applicant provides no substantiative arguments beyond citing the amended limitations. The claims stand rejected as the amendments are further anticipated by the cited patent. With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the arguments on pages 1-6 are largely a summary of cited case law, Office Guidance, and the prior rejection but do not make any argument on the merits, such that there is nothing substantive for the examiner to rebut. Applicant’s arguments are predominantly conclusory statements that the claims were not considered as a whole and as an ordered combination. Examiner considered the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination and 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). Therefore, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed July 18, 2025, 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. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. 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.
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 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
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715