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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/408,878, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The examiner notes that this application number may be a typo as it is not related to the instant application.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the artificial intelligence entry management". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-5,9,13, and16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin US 20220006980 in view of Singh US 20200280702.
Regarding claim 1, Lin disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
An entry management system comprising:
an entry management device (i.e. doorbell unit 106) [25; fig. 1] including: a camera (i.e. camera 110) [25; fig. 1]; a display screen (i.e. display 108) [25; fig. 1]; and a housing to retain said camera (i.e. housing) [25; fig. 1];
an access point comprising: an electronic lock that is operable to lock and unlock the access point (i.e. entry point has a lock) [97; fig. 1]; and
a software platform (i.e. doorbell would have some software) [fig. 1];
an entrant mobile device (i.e. mobile device) [37; fig. 5] including: a camera a microphone; a speaker; a processor and memory; and a housing to retain said camera, said microphone and said speaker (i.e. mobile device known to have camera, microphone, speaker, processor, memory, housing) [37; fig. 5];
wherein the electronic lock is in direct wireless communication with the entry management device or wherein the electronic lock is in wireless communication with the entry management device via the software platform (i.e. control unit can control electronic locks at the property. It would be necessary to unlock the electronic lock for access control based on authentication of the visitor) [97], and
wherein the electronic lock is operable to receive commands from the entry management system to lock and unlock the access point (i.e. electronic lock may be controlled by module 522) [63-67,97; fig. 1,2];
wherein the entrant management device is operable to process visual data and/or audio data to determine if an image and/or a sound displayed by the entry management device corresponds with at least one authorized image and/or at least one authorized sound for the access point (i.e. QR codes on mobile device and doorbell used to authorize entry) [63-67,97; fig. 1,2];
wherein the entry management system is operable to send at least one command to the electronic lock to unlock the access point if the image and/or the sound displayed corresponds with at least one authorized image and/or at least one authorized sound (i.e. control unit can control electronic locks at the property. It would be necessary to unlock the electronic lock for access control based on authentication of the visitor) [97]; and
wherein, the entry management device is configured to work on a networkable platform with networked software accessible and said entrant mobile device running the networked software and participating on the networkable platform (i.e. network 130 and apps (software) used on the platform for communication between devices.) [128-130].
Lin do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
an entry management device including: a camera; a microphone; a speaker;
wherein, the artificial intelligence entry management device is configured to work on a networkable platform with networked software accessible and interactive with said artificial intelligence entry management device and said entrant mobile device running the networked software and participating on the networkable platform
However, in the same field of endeavor Singh discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
an entry management device (i.e. doorbell unit 14) [36; fig. 6] including: a camera (i.e. camera 51) [25; fig. 1]; a microphone (i.e. 52) [25; fig. 6]; a speaker (i.e. 54) [25; fig. 6]; and a housing to retain said camera (i.e. housing) [25; fig. 1];
wherein, the artificial intelligence entry management device is configured to work on a networkable platform with networked software accessible and interactive with said artificial intelligence entry management device and said entrant mobile device running the networked software and participating on the networkable platform (i.e. AI used on the doorbell system) [39]
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin with Singh to have an entry management device including: a camera; a microphone; a speaker; and the artificial intelligence entry management device is configured to work on a networkable platform with networked software accessible and interactive with said artificial intelligence entry management device and said entrant mobile device running the networked software and participating on the networkable platform.
It would be advantageous because "For example, although such doorbells can
initiate contact with a remote user, the user might not find it convenient to
actually speak to the visitor at the particular time of contact. Also, if the visitor is
speaking a different language than what the user is accustomed to, the user
might not be able to communicate with the visitor at all. A need therefore exists
for an improved doorbell system which eliminates one or more of the foregoing
disadvantages.” [4].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Lin with Singh to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Singh disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
The entry management system of claim 1, wherein the camera of the entry management device is an artificial intelligence assisted camera to determine (i.e. AI used to assist camera determining) [39].
Regarding claim 3, Lin disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
The entry management system of claim 1, wherein the entry management system requires entry of a confirmation entry before unlocking the access point (i.e. If the control unit 120 or the doorbell unit 106 determines that the optical access code corresponds to an authorized access code, the visitor 102 is granted access.) [36].
Regarding claim 4, Lin disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
The entry management system of claim 3, wherein entry management device further comprises a user input and wherein the confirmation entry is input through said user input (i.e. In some implementations, the optical code may be generated on the mobile device display screen 114 when the visitor 102 opens an application on her mobile device 112 or when she inputs a command to her mobile device 112.) [27].
Regarding claim 5, Lin disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
The entry management system of claim 4, wherein the display screen of the entry management device is a touch screen that is the user input for entry of the confirmation entry (i.e. mobile device may have a touch screen) [56].
Regarding claim 9, Lin disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
The entry management system of claim 3, wherein the entrant mobile device has a user input and wherein the confirmation entry is input through said user input of the entrant mobile device (i.e. mobile device may have a touch screen) [56].
Regarding claim 13, Lin disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
The entry management system of claim 9, wherein the entry management device is in wireless communication with the entrant mobile device through the software platform and wherein a confirmation entry displayed on the entry management device is required to be input into the user input of the entrant mobile device before the access point is unlocked (i.e. device has wireless communication. If the control unit 120 or the doorbell unit 106 determines that the optical access code corresponds to an authorized access code, the visitor 102 is granted access.) [9,32,36].
Regarding claim 16, Lin disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
The entry management system of claim 13, wherein the confirmation entry is a one-time confirmation entry (i.e. device has wireless communication. If the control unit 120 or the doorbell unit 106 determines that the optical access code corresponds to an authorized access code, the visitor 102 is granted access.) [9,32,36].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Singh in view of Henderson US 20170332055.
Regarding claim 6, Lin and Singh do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the confirmation entry is a personal identification number.
However, in the same field of endeavor Henderson discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the confirmation entry is a personal identification number [30].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin and Singh with Henderson to have wherein the confirmation entry is a personal identification number.
It would be advantageous because a PIN provides a well-known method of confirming that the user has the necessary credentials to gain access.
Combining known elements yields predictable results [KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Lin and Singh with Henderson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Singh and Hamel US 20190305967 in view of Henderson.
Regarding claim 12, Lin and Singh and Hamel do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the confirmation entry is a personal identification number.
However, in the same field of endeavor Henderson discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the confirmation entry is a personal identification number [30].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin and Singh and Hamel with Henderson to have the confirmation entry is a personal identification number.
It would be advantageous because a PIN provides a well-known method of confirming that the user has the necessary credentials to gain access.
Combining known elements yields predictable results [KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Lin and Singh and Hamel with Henderson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Claim(s) 7,10,14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, Singh and Henderson in view of Hamel US 20190305967.
Regarding claim 7, Lin, Singh and Henderson do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the access point is an electronic account.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hamel discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the access point is an electronic account (i.e. credential authentication for a web browser) [111,133].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin, Singh and Henderson with Hamel wherein the access point is an electronic account.
It would be advantageous because an electronic account is a well-known type of access point.
Combining known elements yields predictable results [KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Lin, Singh and Henderson with Hamel to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Hamel meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The entry management system of claim 9, wherein the access point is an electronic account (i.e. credential authentication for a web browser) [111,133].
Regarding claim 14, Hamel meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The entry management system of claim 13, wherein the access point is an electronic account (i.e. credential authentication for a web browser) [111,133].
Regarding claim 17, Hamel meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The entry management system of claim 16, wherein the access point is an electronic account (i.e. credential authentication for a web browser) [111,133].
Claim(s) 8, 11, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, Singh, Henderson, and Hamel in view of Bolla US 20190392428.
Regarding claim 8, Lin, Singh, Henderson, and Hamel do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the electronic account is a financial account.
However, in the same field of endeavor Bolla discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the electronic account is a financial account (i.e. virtual key used for financial account data) [45].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Lin, Singh, Henderson, and Hamel with Bolla to have wherein the electronic account is a financial account.
It would be advantageous because a financial account is a well-known type of account.
Combining known elements yields predictable results [KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Lin, Singh, Henderson, and Hamel with Bolla to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 8.
Claim 15 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 8.
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 8.
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: 8:00 - 4:30 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