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 § 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) 1-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell US 20150156031 in view of Sen US 20150341869.
Regarding claim 1, Fadell disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
A system, comprising:
a doorbell comprising a doorbell housing (i.e. doorbell 106 has housing) [54; fig. 8a];
a low-energy transceiver coupled to the doorbell housing, the low-energy transceiver configured to activate in response to the doorbell performing an action selected from group consisting of sending a first transmission, receiving a second transmission, and combinations thereof (i.e. wireless/wired networking component 862 can be Bluetooth or zigbee for low energy transceivers for transmission or reception of signals) [325; fig. 8a]; and
a high-energy transceiver coupled to the doorbell housing, the high-energy transceiver configured to deactivate in response to activation of the low-energy transceiver (i.e. wireless/wired networking component 862 can be Bluetooth or zigbee for low energy transceivers for transmission or reception of signals. In some cases, backup means of wireless communication (e.g., 3G/4G) is provided in the event the primary means of communication (e.g., Wi-Fi) becomes disabled, such as due to power outage. The spokesman node “dropping down” to the low communication would imply that the communication switches from high power to lower power which would deactivate the high power communication device.) [59, 62, 325; fig. 8a],
wherein the low-energy transceiver and the high-energy transceiver are selected in connection with an automated process determined by a processor based on energy consumption requirements (i.e. The smart hazard detector 104 may be a low-power consuming device that is powered by battery 512 and that includes a low-power communication chip (such as a ZigBee chip) and may participate as a low-power node in the mesh network of the smart-home environment 100 by generating and transmitting messages, relay messages from other devices, as well as by "listen" and sometimes making a corresponding response. However, it should be appreciated that instead of or in addition to being battery powered, the smart hazard detector 104 may be powered by AC voltage from the home. In some embodiments, the smart hazard detector 104 includes a WiFi chipset that enable it to communicate its status to other devices in the smart-home environment 100, to user mobile devices 166, to the central server or cloud-computing system 164, as well as to external managed security services.) [223].
Fadell do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the action is less than a predetermined transmission threshold
However, in the same field of endeavor Sen discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the action is less than a predetermined transmission threshold (i.e. transmission power can be changed based on an allowable transmission power.) [71,75]
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Fadell with Sen to have the action is less than a predetermined transmission threshold.
It would be advantageous because using the low powered devices when the high-powered device is not necessary would be more energy efficient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Fadell with Sen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the low-energy transceiver is configured to transmit data in a first local area network, and wherein the high-energy transceiver is configured to transmit data in a second local area network (i.e. low powered and high powered networks used to transmit data) [61-62,127,134].
Regarding claim 3, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 2, wherein the first local area network consumes less energy per unit of operating time than the second local area network (i.e. low powered network would use less energy that the wifi network) [61-62,127,134].
Regarding claim 4, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the doorbell housing comprises a battery compartment configured to receive a battery to thereby power the doorbell (i.e. doorbell has battery) [244].
Regarding claim 5, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the low-energy transceiver is a first low-energy transceiver, and the high-energy transceiver is a first high-energy transceiver, the system further comprising: a chime comprising a chime housing; a second low-energy transceiver coupled to the chime housing; and a second high-energy transceiver coupled to the chime housing, wherein the second low-energy transceiver and the second high-energy transceiver are configurable to perform an action selected from the group consisting of transmitting data to at least one of the first low-energy transceiver and the first high-energy transceiver, receiving data from at least one of the first low-energy transceiver and the first high-energy transceiver, and combinations thereof (i.e. wireless/wired networking component 862 can be Bluetooth or zigbee for low energy transceivers for transmission or reception of signals. low (Bluetooth and zigbee) and high energy (wifi) can be used for many smart devices in the home.) [59, 325; fig. 8a].
Regarding claim 6, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 5, further comprising a Wi-Fi communication hub communicatively coupled to a component selected from the group consisting of the doorbell, the chime, and combinations thereof (i.e. hubbed network 212 would have a hub for wifi communication) [60,103; fig. 2].
Regarding claim 7, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 6, wherein the Wi-Fi communication hub comprises a Wi-Fi router (i.e. hubbed network 212 would have a hub for wifi communication. Wireless router 160) [60,103; fig. 2].
Regarding claim 9, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 6, wherein the first high-energy transceiver comprises a first Wi-Fi transceiver and the second high-energy transceiver comprises a second Wi-Fi transceiver (i.e. network connected smart devices use WiFi.) [127].
Regarding claim 10, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 6, wherein a component selected from the group consisting of the doorbell, the chime, the Wi-Fi communication hub, and combinations thereof is configured to communicate with a remote computing device (i.e. hubbed network 212 would have a hub for wifi communication. Wireless router 160 would be used for communication to a remote computing device.) [60,103; fig. 2].
Regarding claim 11, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 10, wherein a first transceiver selected from the group consisting of the first low-energy transceiver, the second low-energy transceiver, and combinations thereof is configured to activate in response to a first request from the remote computing device (i.e. color of light source is changeable. This would be done using the app on a remote device. Nightlight has zigbee chip which would be used to low energy transceivers to communicate) [66], and wherein a second transceiver selected from the group consisting of the first high-energy transceiver, the second high-energy transceiver, and combinations thereof is configured to activate in response to a second request from the remote computing device [421].
Regarding claim 12, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 10, wherein the doorbell further comprises a light source configured to illuminate light, and wherein a transceiver selected from the group consisting of the first low-energy transceiver, the second low-energy transceiver, and combinations thereof is configured to activate in response to a request from the remote computing device to change a color of the light illuminated by the light source (i.e. color of light source is changeable. This would be done using the app on a remote device. Nightlight has zigbee chip which would be used to communicate) [66].
Regarding claim 13, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 5, wherein the second high-energy transceiver is configured to deactivate in response to activation of the second low-energy transceiver (i.e. wireless/wired networking component 862 can be Bluetooth or zigbee for low energy transceivers for transmission or reception of signals. In some cases, backup means of wireless communication (e.g., 3G/4G) is provided in the event the primary means of communication (e.g., Wi-Fi) becomes disabled, such as due to power outage. The spokesman node “dropping down” to the low communication would imply that the communication switches from high power to lower power which would deactivate the high power communication device.) [59, 62, 325; fig. 8a].
Regarding claim 14, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 5, wherein the chime housing comprises a battery compartment configured to receive a battery to thereby power the chime (i.e. many of the devices in the smart home environment are batter powered.) [61].
Regarding claim 15, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 5, further comprising a visitor detection system coupled to the doorbell housing, the visitor detection system comprising a component selected from the group consisting of a button, a camera, a microphone, a motion detector, and combinations thereof (i.e. doorbell has camera, audio, motion sensors 828) [327; fig. 8a-c].
Regarding claim 16, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 15, wherein a transceiver selected from the group consisting of the first low-energy transceiver, the second low-energy transceiver, and combinations thereof is configured to activate in response to an event detected by the visitor detection system (i.e. a visitor is detected and a communication is sent out. This can be done in any suitable protocol. Lower energy communication would be used when the high powered communication is not necessary.) [348; fig. 20].
Regarding claim 17, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 15, wherein a transceiver selected from the group consisting of the first high-energy transceiver, the second high-energy transceiver, and combinations thereof is configured to activate in response to the visitor detection system detecting a presence of a visitor (i.e. a visitor is detected and a communication is sent out. If this is done to a smart phone. This would mean that it would be the wifi (high energy transmission)) [348; fig. 20].
Regarding claim 18, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 5, wherein the first low-energy transceiver is configured to transmit data in a first local area network, wherein the first high-energy transceiver is configured to transmit data in a second local area network, wherein the second low-energy transceiver is configured to transmit data in a third local area network, and wherein the second high-energy transceiver is configured to transmit data in a fourth local area network (i.e. a visitor is detected and a communication is sent out. This can be done in any suitable protocol. Lower energy communication would be used when the high-powered communication is not necessary. This would mean that it would be the wifi (high energy transmission).) [348; fig. 20].
Regarding claim 19, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 18, wherein the first local area network consumes less energy per unit of operating time than the second local area network (i.e. low powered network would use less energy that the wifi network) [61-62,127,134].
Regarding claim 20, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 18, wherein the third local area network consumes less energy per unit of operating time than the fourth local area network (i.e. low powered network would use less energy that the wifi network) [61-62,127,134].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell and Sen in view of Fadell2 US 20150097686.
Regarding claim 8, Fadell and Sen do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the first low-energy transceiver comprises a first Bluetooth low-energy transceiver and the second low-energy transceiver comprises a second Bluetooth low-energy transceiver.
However, in the same field of endeavor Fadell2 discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the first low-energy transceiver comprises a first Bluetooth low-energy transceiver and the second low-energy transceiver comprises a second Bluetooth low-energy transceiver (i.e. Bluetooth low energy (BLE) used for communication between devices.) [42].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Fadell and Sen with Fadell2 to have the first low-energy transceiver comprises a first Bluetooth low-energy transceiver and the second low-energy transceiver comprises a second Bluetooth low-energy transceiver
It would be advantageous because BLE is a widely used protocol for communication that is energy efficient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Fadell and Sen with Fadell2 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
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