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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claims 1-8 contain the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the first and second Bluetooth and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Additionally, it is unclear as to what the Applicant intends for the “first Bluetooth” and the “second Bluetooth” to be, e.g. antennas.
Furthermore, claims 1-8 further define ranges, angles, etc., without additional limitations or supporting specification to define how the Applicant’s invention is specifically designed or operated to functionally limit said ranges, angles, etc. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed ranges, angles, etc. is that the safe door opening technology is “operable” at said ranges, angles, etc. For example, claim 1 defines “the first UWB antenna (3) forms a sensing range of 2 m at a fixed angle outside the door”. The first UWB antenna (3) is therefore interpreted as being located outside of the door, affixed at a fixed angle, and operable at 2 meters (or less).
Claim 7 further recites the phrase “full-angle circular connection range”, however, the first and second Bluetooth operate in a three-dimensional space. It is therefore unclear as to whether the Applicant intends for the “full-angle circular” to encompass a spherical shape surrounding both the first and second Bluetooth or if the Applicant intends for the connection range to be limited to a circular shape surrounding the first and second Bluetooth in a single dimension, e.g. a single value of the x-axis. The Applicant’s specification only recites the same terms, and does not provide additional details with regards to the Applicant’s intended interpretation. For purposes of examination, the “full-angle circular connection range” will be interpreted as a spherical range with respect to the combined communication ranges of the first and second Bluetooth.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabjanski et al. (U.S. 2023/0119797 A1) in view of Dumas et al. (U.S. 2016/0086400 A1).
Claim 1, Fabjanski teaches:
A safe door opening technology based on UWB sensing (Fabjanski, Paragraph [0045]), comprising a front lock body (1), a rear lock body (8) (Fabjanski, Fig. 3: 306, Paragraph [0045], The control mechanism 306 can be a locking mechanism, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the control mechanism 306 to have a body having a front and rear side.), a first Bluetooth (2), a second Bluetooth (7), an NFC antenna (6), a first UWB antenna (3) and a second UWB antenna (5), wherein the first Bluetooth (2) is arranged on the front lock body (1), the first UWB antenna (3) and the second UWB antenna (5) are symmetrically arranged in middle portions of the front lock body (1), and on the rear lock body (8) is provided with the second Bluetooth (7) which corresponds to the first Bluetooth (2) in position (Fabjanski, Fig. 3: 302, Paragraph [0045], The reader 302 may communicate with credential or key devices via Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), near field communication (NFC), and UWB. As per the first and second Bluetooth and the first and second UWB antenna, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to duplicate the number of respective antenna, as a matter of engineering choice. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, and would yield predictable results. As per the first Bluetooth arranged on the front lock body, the first UWB antenna and the second UWB antenna symmetrically arranged in middle portions of the front lock body, and the rear lock body is provided with the second Bluetooth which corresponds to the first Bluetooth in position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the locations of the respective devices, as a matter of engineering/design choice. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.); and
the first Bluetooth (2) and the second Bluetooth (7) form connection ranges respectively outside and inside a door (Fabjanski, Paragraph [0045], The reader 302 is associated with an access point 305, such as a door. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the Bluetooth sensing components of the reader 302 to have connection ranges both inside and/or outside of the door with which the reader 302 is associated.);
the first UWB antenna (3) forms a sensing range of 2 m at a fixed angle outside the door, and the second UWB antenna (5) forms an unlocking range of 1 m at a fixed angle outside the door (Fabjanski, Paragraph [0045], As per the fixed angles of the first and second UWB antenna, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the angles at which the first and second UWB antennas are arranged at a specific fixed angle, as a matter of engineering and/or design choice. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose and would yield predictable results. As per the sensing range of 2m of the first UWB antenna dnt eh unlocking range of 1m of the second UWB antenna, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the UWB operating ranges to encompass the 2m and 1m ranges, respectively, as disclosed in the Applicant’s specification. It is noted that the Applicant’s specification does not inherently or explicitly define that the Applicant’s claimed invention modifies existing UWB technology to achieve the claimed ranges of 1m and 2m, respectively, and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation is for the UWB antenna to be capable of operating in the respective ranges.).
Fabjanski did not explicitly teach:
A radar (4), the radar (4) is arranged on the front lock body (1) and below an NFC antenna (6);
the radar (4) forms a scanning range at a fixed angle outside the door for judging whether a communication terminal is outside the door.
Dumas teaches:
A radar (4) (Dumas, Paragraph [0092]);
the radar (4) forms a scanning range at a fixed angle outside the door for judging whether a communication terminal is outside the door (Dumas, Paragraph [0092], The lock 11 may include a radar device to detect the locations of the entrant by facing outward in its sweep. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the “facing outward” to be at a fixed angle. Additionally, the lock 11 is installed on the front door for detecting whether an entrant having a remote access device 15 approaches from the outside of the home (see Dumas, Paragraph [0041]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Fabjanski by integrating the teaching of a radar, as taught by Dumas.
The motivation would be to aid in inside/outside determination and break-in monitoring (see Dumas, Paragraph [0098]).
As per the limitation of the radar (4) is arranged on the front lock body (1) and below an NFC antenna (6), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the location of the radar, in the combination of Fabjanski in view of Dumas, by modifying the location of the radar to be arranged on the front lock body and below the NFC antenna, as a matter of engineering and/or design choice. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 2, Fabjanski in view of Dumas further teaches:
The safe door opening technology based on radar and UWB sensing according to claim 1, wherein the NFC antenna (6) is arranged on an outer circumference of the first UWB antenna (3) and the second UWB antenna (5) (Fabjanski, Fig. 6: 630, Paragraph [0063], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the location and shape of the NFC antenna to be on an outer circumference of the first and second UWB antenna, as a matter of engineering and/or design choice. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.).
Claim 3, Fabjanski in view of Dumas further teaches:
The safe door opening technology based on radar and UWB sensing according to claim 1, wherein the radar (4) detects outside the door at an angle of 90 to 150 degrees (Dumas, Paragraph [0092], The radar device may be included in lock 11 or coupled adjacent to the lock to detect the locations of the entrant by facing outward, e.g. outward from the door on which lock 11 is installed (see Dumas, Paragraph [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the radar to be capable of detecting the entrant at an angle that is less than or equal to 180 degrees, i.e. outward from the face of the door, wherein the angle would thus overlap with Applicant’s claimed 90-150 degrees. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.).
Claim 4, Fabjanski in view of Dumas further teaches:
The safe door opening technology based on radar and UWB sensing according to claim 1, wherein the first UWB antenna (3) detects outside the door at an angle of 60 to 90 degrees (Fabjanski, Fig. 3, Paragraph [0045], The reader 302 is configured to communicate with credential or key devices via wireless technologies in front of an access point 305, e.g. a door. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the reader 302, i.e. utilizing UWB, to detect the credential or key devices at an angle that is less than or equal to 180 degrees, i.e. outward from access point 305 (or the wall adjacent thereto in Fig. 3), wherein the angle would thus overlap with Applicant’s claimed 60-90 degrees. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.).
Claim 5, Fabjanski in view of Dumas further teaches:
The safe door opening technology based on radar and UWB sensing according to claim 1, wherein the second UWB antenna (5) detects outside the door at an angle of 30 to 60 degrees (Fabjanski, Fig. 3, Paragraph [0045], The reader 302 is configured to communicate with credential or key devices via wireless technologies in front of an access point 305, e.g. a door. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the reader 302, i.e. utilizing UWB, to detect the credential or key devices at an angle that is less than or equal to 180 degrees, i.e. outward from access point 305 (or the wall adjacent thereto in Fig. 3), wherein the angle would thus overlap with Applicant’s claimed 30-60 degrees. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.).
Claim 6, Fabjanski in view of Dumas further teaches:
The safe door opening technology based on radar and UWB sensing according to claim 1, wherein a connection range of the first Bluetooth (2) and the second Bluetooth (7) is from 3 m to 5 m (Fabjanski, Fig. 3, Paragraph [0045], The range of 3-5 meters is within the standard operating range of Bluetooth technology operating in the ISM Bands, which includes a range of up to 10 meters.).
Claim 7, Fabjanski in view of Dumas further teaches:
The safe door opening technology based on radar and UWB sensing according to claim 6, wherein the first Bluetooth (2) and second Bluetooth (7) together form a full-angle circular connection range (Dumas, Fig. 7: 50, 52, Paragraph [0093], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the combination of interior facing directional antenna 50 and external facing directional antenna 52, which operate via Bluetooth (see Dumas, Paragraph [0099]), to collectively form a three-dimensional spherical range for communicating with remote access devices 15 that are inside or outside, respectively.).
Claim 8, Fabjanski in view of Dumas further teaches:
The safe door opening technology based on radar and UWB sensing according to
claim 1, wherein a scanning range of the radar (4) is from 3 m to 5 m (Dumas, Paragraphs [0092] and [0098], The radar is used to determine inside/outside ambiguity from the lock 11 and door (see Dumas, Paragraph [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the lock 11 to be capable of sensing the presence of a remote access device 15, which determines presence in a “close proximity”, to overlap the range of 3-5 meters. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p 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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights