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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Glencross [US 2016/0314663] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 1, the electronic doorbell system (Title: doorbell switch) taught by Glencross includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed housing is met by the housing (Paragraph 23: housing of the doorbell switch 250) configured to house an electronic doorbell, 2) the claimed detection device is met by the doorbell button (No. 254) coupled to the housing, 3) the claimed light source is met by the lamp (No. 284) coupled to the housing configured to emit a light, 4) the claimed lens is met by the lens (No. 288) disposed within the housing, the light source being operable to project an illumination onto a target (No. 290) via the lens, in response to an event by the detection device (Paragraph 30: Upon actuation of the doorbell button 254 by an individual…update or change the display state of the illuminated projection 290), and 5) the claimed mechanical adjustment mechanism is met by the rotatable mechanism (Paragraph 23) configured to adjust a direction of the lens (Paragraph 23: such as a rotatable turret or other similar structure…, the projector 280 can be adjusted to illuminate the ground, a wall, a door, etc., regardless of the manner in which the doorbell switch 250 is mounted).
For claim 4, the transparent or semi-transparent sheet (Paragraph 24) taught by Glencross acts as a filter that determines the design or logo projected onto the target.
For claim 5, the lens assembly of Glencross includes one or more converging-focus lenses (Paragraph 24) to cast the light from the lamp.
For claim 7, the lens assembly of Glencross also includes one or more diverging-focus lenses (Paragraph 24) to spread the light and focus the illumination onto the target (see Fig. 2).
For claim 8, in one embodiment (Paragraph 30) of Glencross, an automated display state such as “We’re Home” may be displayed that is updated to “Hold On, We’re On the Way” upon depression of the doorbell.
For claim 9, one embodiment (Paragraph 26) of Glencross will change the illuminated projection (No. 290) based on motion, light, temperature, or other physical or environmental factors detected by one or more sensors of the doorbell switch.
For claim 10, Figure 2 of Glencross uses the ground as a target surface.
For claim 11, the system of Glencross also includes a remote computing device (No. 160) coupled to the doorbell (Fig. 1) configured to run a mobile application (No. 162), wherein the electronic doorbell is configured to project the illumination in response to an input on the mobile application (Paragraph 33).
For claim 15, the method of projecting an illumination (No. 290) by an electronic doorbell (Title: doorbell switch) taught by Glencross comprising 1) the claimed lens met by the lens (No. 288), 2) the claimed mechanical adjustment mechanism met by the rotatable mechanism (Paragraph 23) configured to adjust a direction of the lens (Paragraph 23: such as a rotatable turret or other similar structure…, the projector 280 can be adjusted to illuminate the ground, a wall, a door, etc., regardless of the manner in which the doorbell switch 250 is mounted), 3) the claimed detection device met by the doorbell button (No. 254), and 4) the claimed light source is met by the lamp (No. 284), wherein light from the light source is configured to pass through the lens to project the illumination onto a target (see Fig. 2), the method comprising 5) the claimed receiving a notification of a trigger event is achieved using the doorbell button (Paragraph 30: Upon actuation of the doorbell button 254 by an individual…update or change the display state of the illuminated projection 290), and 6) the claimed projecting the illumination onto the target is achieved using the projector (No. 280) wherein the projecting comprises emitting, by the light, the illumination through the lens and onto the target, such that a design of the illumination is determined by the lens (Paragraph 24: the display 286 can include a transparent or semi-transparent sheet or lens having a design, logo, alpha-numeric message, or other image printed or formed in or upon it).
For claim 16, the trigger event of Glencross comprises a press of a button (Paragraph 30: Upon actuation of the doorbell button 254 by an individual…update or change the display state of the illuminated projection 290).
For claim 19, the Glencross reference also includes a power supply (No. 230) that provides power for the operation (ringing) of the doorbell upon actuation of the doorbell button (Paragraph 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2, 3, 12-14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glencross in view of Chen [CN 2304927] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 2, the Glencross reference does not comprise a canister detachably coupled to the housing.
Canisters have been used in projecting devices for some time. The multifunctional image projector taught by Chen also includes a light source and projecting film in conjunction with a lens having a variable focus. As seen in Figure 3, a light source (No. 3) is placed behind a fog plate (No. 4) having a projection sheet (No. 5) placed next to it. Furthermore, a lens (No. 6) is needed in order to project the image onto a target (No. 7). More importantly, the lens is also mounted inside a cylindrical lens holder (No. 11) that is threadedly connected to the housing or carriage (No. 12) of the projector. As the threaded canister is adjusted, the lens will move in one direction or the other to focus the image onto its target.
The canister of Chen presents an easy method and apparatus to adjust the focus of an image onto a target in order to see the projected image. And the Glencross already mentions (Paragraph 24) converging and/or diverging focus lenses to cast the light from its lamp. Moreover, Glencross also mentions rotatable mechanisms (Paragraph 23) in order to adjust the location of the image. Using a canister similar to that of Chen would provide an easy way to focus the image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the canister of Chen into the apparatus of Glencross for the purpose of providing an easy method to focus the image onto the target.
For claim 3, the canister (No. 11) of Chen includes a lens (No. 6).
For claim 12, a threaded canister similar to that of Chen would be able to be rotated in two separate directions depending on whether the user needs to focus in either direction.
For claims 13 and 14, the threaded canister of Chen, similar to lenses mounted in cameras, would move the lens further or closer away from the target based on the direction the canister is rotated.
For claim 17, the Glencross reference does not specifically mention the mechanical adjustment mechanism coupled to the housing.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 2 above.
For claim 18, the threaded canister of Chen, similar to lenses mounted in cameras, would move the lens further or closer away from the target based on the direction the canister is rotated.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glencross in view of Kawakami [US 2004/0257670] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 6, the Glencross reference does mention using converging or diverging focus lenses as mentioned above. However, there are not three separate magnification lenses in Glencross.
Using more than one lens in a projection system is not new in the prior art. The projector lens system taught by Kawakami provides a projector apparatus that has a multitude of both negative refractive lenses and positive refractive lenses. Each lens group has no less than five different individual lenses.
The obvious advantage of the Kawakami reference is that it provides a projector apparatus that is compact, has a wide angle-of-view, and has a high image-forming performance suitable for a light bulb (Paragraph). Also, the Kawakami reference is meant for projecting an image from a light bulb onto a target such as a screen. And the Glencross reference is also directed to projecting a focused image onto a target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include three separate magnification lenses in the system of Glencross for the purpose of providing a lens system that is ideal for projecting a focused image.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glencross in view of Siminoff [US 2018/0032979] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 20, the Glencross reference does mention a camera and microphone (Paragraph 27) incorporated into the doorbell housing. However, there is no mention of triggering the doorbell based on motion detected by the camera or sound detected by the microphone.
Using images or sound to detect a user is not new in doorbell technology. The recording device of Siminoff may include a communication device (No. 100) having both a camera (No. 102) and microphone (No. 104) in order to record images and sound as well as to detect passersby near the doorbell. One method (Fig. 2) of Siminoff details detecting the visitor’s presence using the motion detected by the camera (Paragraph 108).
And the Glencross reference also mentions changing the illuminated projection based on detection of motion (Paragraph 26) as well as other environmental factors near the doorbell switch. The Siminoff reference merely introduces one obvious method of detecting motion using a camera. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a camera to detect motion in the system of Glencross in order to use a very common and well-known apparatus for motion detection.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,074,790. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims pertain to a doorbell system having a housing and detection device that also includes a lens and light source as well as a mechanical adjustment mechanism to adjust a direction of the lens.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,376. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims pertain to a doorbell system having a housing and detection device that also include a lens and light source as well as a mechanical adjustment mechanism to adjust a direction of the lens.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,300,092. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims pertain to a doorbell system having a housing and detection device that also include a lens and light source as well as a mechanical adjustment mechanism to adjust a direction of the lens.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okubo [U.S. 5,455,715] uses a lens barrel to focus light.
Okada et al [U.S. 5,868,483] is a liquid crystal projector having a plurality of lenses installed in a cylinder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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.
JAT
6/11/2026
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights