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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments on page 3, it is stated that “Thus, Fadell distinguishes between “smart appliances” and “smartphones.” Accordingly, because Siminoff is silent with respect to an appliance, because Fadell distinguishes smartphones from appliances, and because both Siminoff and Fadell define a smartphone, a PHOSITA viewing Fadell in light of Siminoff would only be motivated to combine the smartphone of Siminoff with the smartphone of Fadell, not the smartphone of Siminoff with the smart appliance of Fadell.
Therefore, neither Siminoff nor Fadell, either alone, or in any combination with one another, teach, disclose, and/or make obvious “a doorbell configurable to receive a first notification from an appliance located within a building associated with the doorbell, wherein the appliance is selected from the group consisting of a refrigerator, a range, a microwave, a dishwasher, a laundry machine, a dryer, and a vacuum, wherein the doorbell is further configurable to change a component of the doorbell from a sleep mode to an alert mode in response to receiving the first notification…”.
However, the examiner disagrees and asserts that the references’ features are combined, not necessarily the devices of the references. The feature taught by Siminoff is the doorbell changing power mode in response to a trigger [74-76]. Fadell is the reference used to teach the communication with the various devices.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the rejection, as set forth in the previous office action, stands.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fadell US 20150156031 in view of Siminoff US 20150022620.
Regarding claim 14, Fadell disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
A system, comprising: a doorbell configurable to send a notification to an appliance located within a building associated with the doorbell, wherein the appliance is selected from the group consisting of a refrigerator, a range, a microwave, a dishwasher, a laundry machine, a dryer, and a vacuum (i.e. doorbell communicates to a user communicative component of a smart environment which could be an appliance. Refrigerator 113 shown in fig. 1 is discussed as being a smart device in the house and smart devices are discussed as being capable of receiving notifications from the doorbell regarding visitors. Smart appliances disclosed as refrigerators, stoves, ovens, TV, washers, dryers, etc) [57,141,246,254,327; fig. 1,8a-c].
Fadell do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the doorbell is further configurable to change a component of the doorbell from a sleep mode to an alert mode in response to receiving the notification, wherein the component is selected from the group consisting of a camera, a microphone, a speaker, a motion detector, and combinations thereof.
However, in the same field of endeavor Siminoff discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the doorbell is further configurable to change a component of the doorbell from a sleep mode to an alert mode in response to receiving the notification, wherein the component is selected from the group consisting of a camera, a microphone, a speaker, a motion detector, and combinations thereof (i.e. power processor manages power distribution to many devices in the doorbell such as Speaker 20, Microphone 21, Night Vision LEDs 19, Camera 18, Infrared Sensor 49, Microcontroller 22 and Communications Module 23. A trigger changes the power modes of the devices. Using a trigger of Fadell would change a power mode in response to a notification.) [74-76].
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 Siminoff to have the doorbell is further configurable to change a component of the doorbell from a sleep mode to an alert mode in response to receiving the notification, wherein the component is selected from the group consisting of a camera, a microphone, a speaker, a motion detector, and combinations thereof.
It would be advantageous because “Home safety is a concern for many homeowners and renters. Those seeking to protect or monitor their homes often wish to have video and audio communications with visitors, for example, those visiting an external door or entryway. Existing wireless intercom systems require installation and configuration of multiple devices placed throughout the home that must operate together. Wireless intercom systems that use Wi-Fi communication require hard wiring to a power source and are thereby limited in placement. Therefore, it may be desirable to have a door monitor that may operate independently and consumes reduced energy.” [2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Fadell with Siminoff to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 1, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 14, wherein the doorbell configurable to send a second notification to the appliance located (i.e. doorbell communicates to a user communicative component of a smart environment which could be an appliance. This could happen whenever another visitor appears) [57,141,246,254,327; fig. 1,8a-c].
Regarding claim 2, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the doorbell is further configurable to enable an entity to send the second notification (i.e. doorbell communicates to a user communicative component of a smart environment which could be an appliance. The entity could be a visitor pressing the doorbell button) [57,71,141,246,254,327; fig. 8a-c].
Regarding claim 3, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the doorbell is further configurable to enable an entity to send a third notification to i) a chime, ii) a remote computing device, or iii) both (i.e. doorbell communicates to a user communicative component of a smart environment which could be a remote computing device. Further, other smart devices in the home could act as a chime and produce a sound with a speaker) [57,71,141,246,254,327; fig. 8a-c].
Regarding claim 4, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the speaker coupled to the doorbell, wherein the doorbell is further configurable to emit a sound from the speaker in response to i) a selected event, ii) a predetermined condition, or iii) both (i.e. doorbell has audio speaker 436 which can emit sounds in response to events or conditions) [57,71,141,246-247,327; fig. 8a-c].
Regarding claim 5, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the second notification comprises i) an audible notification, ii) a visual notification, or iii) both second notification to i) a chime, ii) a remote computing device, or iii) both (i.e. doorbell communicates a notification (a push notification could be visual and audible) to a user communicative component of a smart environment which could be a remote computing device) [57,71,141,219,246,327; fig. 8a-c].
Regarding claim 6, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the second notification relates to i) an entity present at the doorbell, ii) the entity has left a message via the doorbell, or iii) both (i.e. visitor approach is notified to a device in the smart environment) [204,243].
Regarding claim 7, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, further comprising a communication hub communicatively coupled to each of the appliance and the doorbell, wherein the doorbell is further configurable to enable two-way communication between the appliance and the doorbell via the communication hub (i.e. hubbed network 212 can establish communication between devices. These smart devices could be a doorbell and an appliance of the system and two way communication can be performed.) [103,136,138, 348; fig. 2].
Regarding claim 8, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the microphone coupled to the doorbell, wherein the appliance comprises a speaker, and wherein the notification comprises a noise detected by the microphone (i.e. a two-way audio communication would play audio recorded by the microphone of the doorbell. Further, package ID information may be spoken by a deliverer and communicated to a recipient) [138,348].
Regarding claim 9, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the motion detector coupled to the doorbell, wherein the notification comprises information pertaining to motion detected by the motion detector (i.e. motion detected and alert may be sent indicating motion) [82,121,168].
Regarding claim 10, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the camera is coupled to the doorbell, wherein the appliance comprises a display (i.e. head unit of smart device can include a display) [201,204].
Regarding claim 11, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 10, wherein the notification comprises i) a still image, ii) a video, or iii) both (i.e. an identified user can be announced or projected on a device in the smart home) [254].
Regarding claim 12, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 10, further comprising a processor configured to use facial recognition software to match facial data of an entity, wherein the second notification comprises information related to the facial data of the entity (i.e. doorbell may use facial recognition to identify a person and announce the presence) [250,254,471,499,502].
Regarding claim 13, Fadell meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the doorbell is further configurable to receive a third notification from the appliance (i.e. doorbell would receive notification from other smart devices in the home. These could be appliances. This would be done during a two-way communication. A custom message can be displayed on a doorbell from another smart device in the home.) [62,219,229].
Claim 15 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 3. The smart home is capable of displaying information captured.
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 7.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marutani US 20150260450 discusses: A refrigerator includes an outside environment information obtaining unit including at least one of a sound obtaining unit configured to obtain outside environment information and an imaging unit configured to image an outside environment, the outside environment information obtaining unit being configured to obtain outside environment information which is capable of grasping an outside situation and a communication unit configured to communicate with an external device connected thereto via a network, thereby rendering the outside environment information obtained by the outside environment information obtaining unit referable at the external device side.
Child US 20140267716 discusses: A system is described herein including a control panel configured to communicate with at least one mobile wireless device, including sending image data to the at least one mobile wireless device using electronic messaging protocols. The system also includes at least one automation component wirelessly connected to the control panel through short range wireless communication protocols. The at least one automation component includes at least one sensor configured to detect a presence of a person at an entry to the physical structure, at least one camera inconspicuously integrated within an entry component at the entry, and at least one short range wireless transceiver coupled to the at least one sensor and the at least one camera and configured to communicate image and sensor data to the control panel and to receive control information from the control panel.
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: 7:00 - 3:00 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
Prosecution Insights