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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The application of Navid Adalibi-Abadan for System, Method, And Devices for Hand-Free Entryways filed 5/02/25 has been examined. Claims 1-30 are pending.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,6,11-13,16,21,27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lemerand et al. US Patent Application Publication 20100253516.
Regarding claim 1, Lemerand teaches a system for a hands-free entryway, comprising:
at least one sensor configured to sense a user that is approaching an entryway, the entryway
comprising a door pivotally attached thereto (paragraph 032);
a latch disengaging mechanism positioned in a jamb or frame of the entryway and
controlled by a controller that is operatively associated with a processor, wherein the controller
determines whether to activate the latch disengaging mechanism to automatically unlatch the door
based on sensor data from the at least one sensor (paragraph 030-032);
a user feedback component that indicates to the user that the entryway can be used without
requiring hands to unlatch the entryway (fig. 4A-6B, paragraph 035-036);
and an entryway closing device configured to bias the door of the entryway to a closed state (paragraph 030,037).
Regarding claim 6, Lemerand teaches is configured to infer the user's intent to enter through the entryway (detecting wave, paragraph 035-036).
Regarding claim 11, Lemerand teaches the latch disengaging mechanism comprises an electric
strike mechanism positioned within the jamb or frame of the entryway, and wherein the entryway
closing device comprises at least one of a spring hinge, a pneumatic closer, a hydraulic closer, a
and-pinion closer, and an electric motor-driven closer (paragraph 030).
Regarding claim 12, Lemerand teaches the user feedback component comprises one or more
of a sound indicator and a light source (paragraph 015-017).
Regarding claim 13, Lemerand teaches the light source positioned within the jamb or frame
of the entryway that indicates, by emitting a light of a particular color, whether the entryway is
operable for passage therethrough without requiring the user to manually unlatch the entryway paragraph 015-017).
Regarding claim 16, Lemerand teaches a method for operating a hands-free entryway, comprising:
sensing, by at least one sensor, a user approaching an entryway, the entryway comprising
a door pivotally attached thereto (paragraph 032);
determining, by a controller operatively associated with a processor, whether to activate a
latch disengaging mechanism positioned in a jamb or frame of the entryway to automatically
unlatch the door based on sensor data from the at least one sensor (paragraph 030-032);
providing, by a user feedback component, an indication to the user that the entryway can
be used without requiring hands to unlatch the entryway (fig. 4A-6B, paragraph 035-036); and
biasing, by an entryway closing device, the door of the entryway to a closed state (paragraph 030,037)..
Regarding claim 21, Lemerand teaches is configured to infer the user's intent to enter through the entryway (detecting wave, paragraph 035-036).
Regarding claim 27, Lemerand teaches the user feedback component comprises one or more
of a sound indicator and a light source (paragraph 015-017).
Regarding claim 28, Lemerand teaches the light source positioned within the jamb or frame
of the entryway that indicates, by emitting a light of a particular color, whether the entryway is
operable for passage therethrough without requiring the user to manually unlatch the entryway paragraph 015-017).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemerand et al. US Patent Application Publication 20100253516 in view of Stern US Patent 12,281,514.
Regarding claim 2, Lemerand teaches the entryway comprises a locking mechanism, and wherein the sensor data includes sensor status data relating to non-deployment or at least partial deployment of the locking mechanism (fig. 4A-6B, paragraph 035-036) but is silent teaching the lock mechanism is a deadbolt. Stern in an analogous art teaches the locking mechanism include a deadbolt (col. 8 lines 38-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand et al. as disclosed by Stern because such modification represent the substitution of one locking mechanism for another for providing the predictable result of securing a passageway.
Regarding claim 17, Lemerand teaches the entryway comprises a locking mechanism, and wherein the sensor data includes sensor status data relating to non-deployment or at least partial deployment of the locking mechanism (fig. 4A-6B, paragraph 035-036) but is silent teaching the lock mechanism is a deadbolt. Stern in an analogous art teaches the locking mechanism include a deadbolt (col. 8 lines 38-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand et al. as disclosed by Stern because such modification represent the substitution of one locking mechanism for another for providing the predictable result of securing a passageway.
Claim(s) 3-4,7-8,14-15,18-19,22-23,26,29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemerand et al. US Patent Application Publication 20100253516 in view of Anderson US Patent Application Publication 20240161562.
Regarding claim 3-4, Lemerand is silent on teaching the at least one sensor is positioned within at least one of the door, the jamb, or the frame of the entryway and detects any person approaching the
entryway. Anderson in an analogous art teaches the at least one sensor is positioned within at least one of the door, the jamb, or the frame of the entryway and detects any person approaching the
entryway (paragraph 05). Anderson also teaches the proximity sensor is RFID (paragraph 038,086)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand as disclosed by Anderson because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Lemerand in order to reliably detect the approach of the user and further increasing the reliability of the access control system.
Regarding claim 7-8, Lemerand is silent on teaching the at least one sensor is configured to authenticate a user using one or more authentication techniques from among biometric identification, mobile device authentication and behavioral analysis method. Anderson in an analogous art teaches the at least one sensor is configured to authenticate a user using one or more authentication techniques from among biometric identification, mobile device authentication and behavioral analysis method (paragraph 061). Anderson teaches the biometric identification includes one or more of facial recognition with 3D depth mapping, voice pattern analysis, fingerprint scanning, and iris recognition (paragraph 081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand as disclosed by Anderson because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Lemerand in order to restrict access and increase security.
Regarding claim 14, Lemerand is silent on teaching a battery module separate from the user
interface module positioned in the jamb or frame of the entryway. Anderson in an analogous art teaches placing a battery module separate from the user interface module positioned in the jamb or frame of the entryway (abstract, paragraph 044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand as disclosed by Anderson because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Lemerand by providing additional and alternative power supply as a backup power supply and further increases the reliability of the access control system.
Regarding claim 15, Lemerand is silent on teaching a combined user interface module and
battery module positioned within the jamb or frame of the entryway, wherein the combined user
interface module and battery module houses both a power source and the user feedback component is
in a single housing. Anderson in an analogous art teaches user interface module and
battery module positioned within the jamb or frame of the entryway (paragraph 044,061) but is silent on teaching the combined user interface module and battery module houses both a power source and the user feedback component is in a single housing. The combination of the user interface and the battery into a single housing is considered as making integral with no unexpected result and therefore considered as obvious (see MPEP 2144.04 V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand as disclosed by Anderson because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Lemerand by providing a more compact door control system.
Regarding claims 18-19, Lemerand is silent on teaching the at least one sensor is positioned within at least one of the door, the jamb, or the frame of the entryway and detects any person approaching the
entryway. Anderson in an analogous art teaches the at least one sensor is positioned within at least one of the door, the jamb, or the frame of the entryway and detects any person approaching the
entryway (paragraph 05). Anderson also teaches the proximity sensor is RFID (paragraph 038,086)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand as disclosed by Anderson because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Lemerand in order to reliably detect the approach of the user and further increasing the reliability of the access control system.
Regarding claim 22-23, Lemerand is silent on teaching the at least one sensor is configured to authenticate a user using one or more authentication techniques from among biometric identification, mobile device authentication and behavioral analysis method. Anderson in an analogous art teaches the at least one sensor is configured to authenticate a user using one or more authentication techniques from among biometric identification, mobile device authentication and behavioral analysis method (paragraph 061). Anderson teaches the biometric identification includes one or more of facial recognition with 3D depth mapping, voice pattern analysis, fingerprint scanning, and iris recognition (paragraph 081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand as disclosed by Anderson because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Lemerand in order to restrict access and increase security.
Regarding claim 26, Lemerand teaches the latch disengaging mechanism comprises an electric
strike mechanism positioned within the jamb or frame of the entryway, and wherein the entryway
closing device comprises at least one of a spring hinge, a pneumatic closer, a hydraulic closer, a
and-pinion closer, and an electric motor-driven closer (paragraph 030).
Regarding claim 29, Lemerand is silent on teaching a battery module separate from the user
interface module positioned in the jamb or frame of the entryway. Anderson in an analogous art teaches placing a battery module separate from the user interface module positioned in the jamb or frame of the entryway (abstract, paragraph 044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand as disclosed by Anderson because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Lemerand by providing additional and alternative power supply as a backup power supply and further increases the reliability of the access control system.
Regarding claim 30, Lemerand is silent on teaching a combined user interface module and
battery module positioned within the jamb or frame of the entryway, wherein the combined user
interface module and battery module houses both a power source and the user feedback component is
in a single housing. Anderson in an analogous art teaches user interface module and
battery module positioned within the jamb or frame of the entryway (paragraph 044,061) but is silent on teaching the combined user interface module and battery module houses both a power source and the user feedback component is in a single housing. The combination of the user interface and the battery into a single housing is considered as making integral with no unexpected result and therefore considered as obvious (see MPEP 2144.04 V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand as disclosed by Anderson because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Lemerand by providing a more compact door control system.
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemerand et al. US Patent Application Publication 20100253516 in view of Beggs US Patent Application Publication 2022/0356743.
.
Regarding claim 5, Lemerand teaches detecting the distance relative to the entryway (paragraph 011,018) but is silent on teaching detecting a predetermined height relative to the entryway. Beggs in an analogous art teaches at least one sensor is configured to detect at a predetermined height and distance relative to the entryway (paragraph 060-061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand as disclosed by Beggs because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Lemerand in order to reliably and efficiently detect the approach of the person to the passageway.
Regarding claim 20, Lemerand teaches detecting the distance relative to the entryway (paragraph 011,018) but is silent on teaching detecting a predetermined height relative to the entryway. Beggs in an analogous art teaches at least one sensor is configured to detect at a predetermined height and distance relative to the entryway (paragraph 060-061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand as disclosed by Beggs because such modification represent an improvement over the system of Lemerand in order to reliably and efficiently detect the approach of the person to the passageway.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemerand et al. US Patent Application Publication 20100253516 in view of Ward et al. US Patent Application Publication 2025/0200154.
Regarding claim 9-10, Lemerand is silent on teaching the at least one sensor comprises two or more different types of sensors, wherein each of the two or more different types of sensors senses a different type of authentication data, and wherein the processor is configured to integrate the different types of authentication data through a weighted algorithm to enforce specific entry conditions for different user types. Ward et al. in an analogous art teaches the at least one sensor comprises two or more different types of sensors, wherein each of the two or more different types of sensors senses a different type of authentication data, and wherein the processor is configured to integrate the different types of
authentication data through a weighted algorithm to enforce specific entry conditions for different
user types (paragraph 029). Ward teaches a management interface configured to receive input from an administrator for establishing the specific entry conditions for the different user types (paragraph 013,018-019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand as disclosed Ward because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Lemerand by increasing the reliability of the user identification process and further increasing the security of the access control system.
Regarding claims 24-25, Lemerand is silent on teaching the at least one sensor comprises two or more different types of sensors, wherein each of the two or more different types of sensors senses a different type of authentication data, and wherein the processor is configured to integrate the different types of authentication data through a weighted algorithm to enforce specific entry conditions for different user types. Ward et al. in an analogous art teaches the at least one sensor comprises two or more different types of sensors, wherein each of the two or more different types of sensors senses a different type of authentication data, and wherein the processor is configured to integrate the different types of
authentication data through a weighted algorithm to enforce specific entry conditions for different
user types (paragraph 029). Ward teaches a management interface configured to receive input from an administrator for establishing the specific entry conditions for the different user types (paragraph 013,018-019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lemerand as disclosed Ward because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Lemerand by increasing the reliability of the user identification process and further increasing the security of the access control system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, 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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571 270 1210. 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights