DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 06/24/2026. Amendments received on 06/24/2026 have been entered. As per applicant claim 3 is canceled and claim 21 is newly added claims. Accordingly claims 1-2 and 4-21 are pending.
Priority
This application claim is a CIP of 18/780,134 which has priority going back to 08/02/2018. This application is a CON of PCT/US2023/026767 (filing date 06/30/2023).
PCT/US2023/026767 has PRO 63/430,280 (12/05/2022) and PRO 63/357,709 (07/01/2022). The subject matter claimed was introduced in the PCT application, so the priority given to current set of claims is 07/01/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski et al. (US Pub 2019/0238355) in view of Sorice et al. (US Pub 2021/0207419).
As of claim 1, Marcinkowski discloses an electronic door system comprising:
a door frame (via door frame 102; see fig. 1);
a door hingedly coupled to the door frame (via door 101; see fig. 1);
an electronic locking mechanism coupled to the door (via smart lock 107; see paragraph [0034]);
one or more lights (via light; see paragraph [0076]);
a camera system including at least two of a camera, a proximity or motion sensor, or a doorbell (via cameras 113/114, microphone 115, proximity sensors, doorbell, motion detector; see fig. 2; also see paragraphs [0037], [0043]-[0044], [0048] and [0052]); and
a wiring harness extending through the door frame and the door, the wiring harness coupled to the electronic locking mechanism, the one or more lights, and the camera system, the wiring harness configured to electrically couple to an external power source (via disclosing that the intelligent frame 102 is hardwired into a building's electrical system. Such a configuration not only improves the intelligent door system's aesthetics but also prevents disconnection of a power source by accident, and a connector 106 providing power to intelligent door 101 and frame 102 from an exterior source, hence disclosing a power transfer mechanism; see fig. 1; also see paragraphs [0030] and [0078]).
Further regarding the limitation of a wiring harness Marcinkowski discloses intelligent frame 102 can include an inductive or automatic electrical coupling mechanism, e.g., different embodiments of connector 106, that mate with a corresponding electrical coupling mechanism of intelligent door 101. For example, an electrical mating between door 101 and frame 102 can involve a male-female coupling (see paragraph [0031]).
Sorice discloses an electronic door system, comprising a power transfer assembly 18 positioned between the door frame and the door (see fig. 11). Sorice discloses a door wiring harness 44 extending through the door and coupled to at least the electronic locking mechanism 34 (see fig. 11; also see paragraph [0052]) and a frame wiring harness 44 extending through the door frame 12, coupled to at least one or more lights 36.sub.4 and the power transfer assembly 18, and configured to electrically coupled to an external power source 42 (see figs. 10-12; also see paragraphs [0059], [0061] and [0068]).
From the teaching of Sorice it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a power transfer mechanism as taught by Sorice to facilitate pivotally coupled the door to a door jamb and facilitating electrically coupling the lock and the camera to an external power source.
As of claim 2, Sorice discloses that the one or more lights are disposed along a doorjamb of the door frame (via one or more lights disposed along a doorjamb 12; see fig. 10; also see paragraph [0059]).
As of claim 4, Marcinkowski discloses that the intelligent door system is hardwired into building electrical system and power sources include AC power source (see paragraphs [0030] and [0074]).
Sorice discloses a power converter (via AC/DC converter 40) disposed within an access panel (slot 41) and configured to receive AC power from the external power source 42 and convert the AC power to DC power (see paragraph [0036]).
As of claim 5, Marcinkowski discloses a backup battery, wherein the wiring harness is coupled to the backup battery (via one or more rechargeable batteries providing a backup power source; see paragraph; see paragraph [0056]).
As of claim 6, Marcinkowski discloses a controller configured to selectively deactivate at least one of the one or more lights or the camera system when the external power source stops providing power to the electronic door system (Marcinkowski discloses that the batteries provide backup power to intelligent door, even though it does not explicitly state selectively deactivating some components but Examiner takes official notice that would have been an obvious design choice that the installer can use to have certain components that are absolutely require for the function of the intelligent door system to be powered while not providing power to certain components in case of power failure for reducing power consumption form battery during power outage; also see Ion (US Pub 2020/0141172, paragraph [0032]).
As of claim 7, Marcinkowski discloses that the backup battery is coupled to the door frame or the door (via one or more rechargeable batteries providing a backup power source; see paragraph; see paragraph [0056]).
As of claims 9, 11 and 13, combination of the references applied discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, Marcinkowski further discloses that a backup battery is disposed within the door panel (via batteries being included in the door or frame; see paragraphs [0056] and [0074]). Marcinkowski further discloses that a doorbell 118 can include cameras (113 or 114) and motion detector 119 and actuation of the doorbell can initiate a routine which triggers one or more cameras to allow a user to see who is at the door, and can initiate a two-way communication between a user device and a person at intelligent door system 100 via microphone 115, speaker 120, camera(s) 113 and 114, and/or external display 121 (see paragraph [0052]). Marcinkowski further discloses a user interface coupled to an interior side of the door frame or the door (via user interface 411 and display 412; see fig. 4; also see paragraph [0070]).
As of claim 10, Marcinkowski discloses that the doorbell is coupled to the frame (see fig. 2). The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art that the video doorbell is coupled to the door (see Swartzmiller (US Pub 2025/0297515) fig. 3A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski, Sorice and further in view of Wang et al. (US Pub 2006/0156361).
As of claim 8, Marcinkowski discloses that the door system includes a backup up battery (see paragraphs [0056]), however it does not explicitly disclose an access panel configured to be positioned remote from the door frame and the door and between the external power source and the wiring harness wherein the access panel receives the backup battery.
Wang discloses an electronic door system comprising an access panel 18 remote from the door 11 and between the external power source and the wiring harness, wherein the access panel receives backup battery 208 (see fig. 3; also see paragraph [0026]).
From the teaching of Wang it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to install backup battery remote from the door as taught by Wang since it is known that housing containing the electronics for a door system can be located on the door or remote from the door in an adjacent wall panel (see paragraph [0020]).
Claims 15, 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski, Sorice and further in view of Naifeh (US Pub 2003/0095185).
As of claims 15, 17-18 and 21, combination of the references applied discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claims 1, 4 and 6 above, Marcinkowski further discloses that a backup battery is disposed within the door panel (via batteries being included in the door or frame; see paragraphs [0056] and [0074]). Marcinkowski further discloses a user interface coupled to an interior side of the door frame or the door (via user interface 411 and display 412; see fig. 4; also see paragraph [0070]). Marcinkowski discloses a speaker 120 coupled to an exterior side of the door frame or the door (see fig. 2). Marcinkowski further discloses an interior side microphone 414; see fig. 4). Marcinkowski further discloses that a doorbell 118 can include cameras (113 or 114) and motion detector 119 and actuation of the doorbell can initiate a routine which triggers one or more cameras to allow a user to see who is at the door, and can initiate a two-way communication between a user device and a person at intelligent door system 100 via microphone 115, speaker 120, camera(s) 113 and 114, and/or external display 121 (see paragraph [0052]). However, it does not explicitly disclose to use the outside speaker and inside microphone to facilitate communication with a first person on the interior side of the door and a second person on an exterior side of the door.
Naifeh discloses a door system comprising internal microphone 908, internal speaker 906, external microphone 904 and external speaker 902 (see fig. 9). Naifeh further discloses that a user could activate the internal microphone 908 and speak into the microphone 908…thus allowing the outsider to hear the user. The user can respond by speaking into the external microphone 904. The external microphone 904 converts the acoustic energy into electrical signals, which are amplified by the amplifying circuit 910, and transmitted to the internal speaker 906. The user, therefore, does not have to open the door to carry on a conversation with the outsider (see paragraph [0083]).
From the teaching of Naifeh it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Marcinkowski, Schau and Guarino to utilize internal and external microphone and speakers to communicate with an outside without opening the door.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski, Sorice, Naifeh and further in view of Wang et al. (US Pub 2006/0156361).
Claim 19 claims the similar subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected in the same manner (please see the rejection of claim 8 above).
Claims 12, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski, Sorice and further in view of Bjergaard et al. (US Pub 2019/0137797).
As of claim 12, 14 and 20, combination of the references applied discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claims 1 and 15 above, Even though the references applied does not explicitly disclose a side panel coupled to the door frame, the Examiner took official notice that it is well known in the art that door system comprises side panels (sidelights) to allow light ingress at the left and right sides of the door (see Olson (US Pub 2016/0053527; paragraph [0005]). The well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice.
However, the combination does not disclose one or more windows disposed within at least one of the door or the side panel, at least one of the one or more windows having an electrically-controllable opacity.
Bjergaard discloses a door with one or more windows having an electrically controllable opacity (see fig. 10; also see abstract).
From the teaching of Bjergaard, it would have it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Marcinkowski, Schau and Guarino to utilize windows having controllable opacity to provide controlled privacy and visual darkening (see paragraph [0003]).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkowski, Sorice, Naifeh and further in view of Bjergaard et al. (US Pub 2019/0137797).
Claim 16 claims the similar subject matter as claim 14 and is rejected in the same manner (please see the rejection of claim 14 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Note: Even though a restriction requirement is not being made in this office action, it is possible in the future since the independent claims are claiming distinct subject matters.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta W Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights