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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-18 are currently pending, claim 1 is currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of ALTINER et al. (US 2021/0324672 A1).
Applicant argued that claim 1 as amended is not disclosed by NITI in view of TAGTOW and in further view of LERPARD does not disclose the limitations of amended claim 1. The examiner agrees that NITI teaches away from the battery being removed from the door to be charged by a charging station, since NITI discloses the battery is charged while placed inside the door via a wired charging station.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner explains that NITI disclosed a door with smart door functionality comprising a display and an externally charged integrated battery and a controller for controlling the functions of the display. The examiner relied on TAGTOW to show that making a battery removable is well known in the art an provided a motivation for the modification. The examiner also relied on LERPARD to address the smart glass limitation and also provided a motivation of modify the teachings of NITI and TAGTOW to include the smart glass of LERPARD.
Applicant also argues that TAGTOW does not disclose a rechargeable battery, 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). The examiner explains that NITI discloses a rechargeable battery, TAGTOW was relied on to showing a removable battery that powers door electronics. Applicant further argues modifying NITI with the teachings of TAGTOW would result in replacing the battery of NITO with the small battery of TAGTOW and that such a small size battery would not be able to perform the function of powering the display of NITI. The examiner respectfully disagrees and explains that NITI as modified by TAGTOW would result in the battery of NITI (same size battery capable of providing power to the display and other electronics) being removable, by forming a housing with contacts that align with battery contacts when slid in the housing to provide power to the electronics and does not involve replacing the large battery disclosed by NITI with the small battery disclosed by TAGTOW.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALTINER et al. (US 2021/0324672 A1, hereinafter ALTINER) in view of ALBERTELLI (US 2007/0113407 A1, hereinafter ALBERTELLI) and in further view of GRIGSBY et al. (GB 2546987 A, hereinafter GRIGSBY).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, ALTINER discloses a powered door system comprising:
a door slab comprising an inner door frame (See Fig.7E, Item#100, discloses a door which implicitly includes a door frame);
an electric device mounted to the door slab (See Fig.7E, Item#102 and Par.43, discloses a pet door that is opened and closed using a motor);
an opening formed on the door slab (See Fig.7E, Item#120 and Par.74, disclose a battery that is accessible via an access door);
a battery housing secured within the opening (See Fig.7E, and Par.74 disclose an access door covering an opening in which the battery is placed, the examiner explains that the area behind the access door is considered a housing with built in terminals to attach the battery to the door to provide power to the pet door 102);
a rechargeable battery slidingly and removably disposed within the battery housing (See Par.74, discloses the battery may be removable from the door 100, the battery is also replaceable i.e. slid into the opening behind the access door);
a controller disposed within an interior of the door slab and electronically coupled to the rechargeable battery, the controller configured to provide a respective operating voltage to the electric device (See Pars.45-46, disclose the door comprising a controller which receives control data and controls the operation of the electric device by providing control signals and power from the power source i.e. battery to the motor of the pet door); and
a charging station configured for electrically connecting to an alternating power source and for charging the rechargeable battery when said rechargeable battery is removed from the battery housing (See Fig.7E, Item#168 and Par.74, disclose an external charger to which the battery 120 is coupled for charging when removed from the door via the access door).
Even though ALTINER does not disclose the controller is disposed on the hinge side of the door slab or that the battery opening is formed on a lock side edge of the door slab, the examiner explains that the placement locations of the items is an obvious design choice and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try different locations for the electronic items inside the door for the benefit of balancing the door (See HEISLER, Fig.3B as evidence which shows a battery 50 that is slid into tray 48 which is then slid into the housing of the door. This shows that the placement of the battery in the lock side edge of the door is a well-known obvious design choice).
However, ALTINER does not explicitly disclose the door comprising an exterior door skin secured to the inner door frame;
an interior door skin secured to the inner door frame opposite the exterior door skin;
a core comprising foam insulation disposed within the inner door frame between the exterior door skin and the interior door skin;
smart glass mounted to or at least partially housed within the door slab and the battery providing power to the smart glass.
ALBERTELLI discloses a door slab comprising an inner door frame (See Fig.2, Item#320 and Par.114, disclose a door slab comprising a wooden frame),
the door comprising an exterior door skin secured to the inner door frame (See Fig.2, Item#304, discloses a first skin);
an interior door skin secured to the inner door frame opposite the exterior door skin (See Fig.2, Item#330 and Par.118, disclose a second skin attached to the precursor);
a core comprising foam insulation disposed within the inner door frame between the exterior door skin and the interior door skin (See Fig.2, Item#303 and Par.114, disclose an open cell foam that fits within the door frame 320).
ALTINER and ALBERTELLI are analogous art since they both deal with doors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by ALTINER with the teachings of ALBERTELLI by using the door structure comprising a slab comprising a frame, an interior skin, an exterior skin and a core comprising foam insulation for the benefit of providing an energy efficient simplified door structure.
However, ALTINER and ALBERTELLI do not disclose smart glass mounted to or at least partially housed within the door slab and the battery providing power to the smart glass.
GRIGSBY a door comprising smart glass mounted to a door and a battery providing a controller which provides power to the smart glass (See Page 3, 2nd paragraph disclose “The access controller may be arranged to selectively allow or prevent the supply of power to the switchable pane”, also see Page 6, second paragraph, disclose “The panel is arranged to be mounted in a door so that the support 20 centres and 15 aligns the switchable glass pane IO in a substantially square aperture cut into the door” also discloses a battery module 60).
ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY are analogous art since they all deal with doors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by ALTINER and ALBETELLI with the teachings of GROGSBY by adding the smart glass pane disclosed by GROSBY for the benefit of allowing the user to switch between visibility where the user can see through the door and a privacy mode.
Regarding claim 2, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY disclose the powered door system of claim 1, wherein the electric device is operated by low-voltage direct current (DC) (See ALTINER, Par.50, discloses a motor which operates the door, the examiner explains that electric devices such as servo motors inherently operate at a low DC voltage).
Regarding claim 5, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY disclose the powered door system of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising a door handle mounted onto the door slab (See ALTINER, Figs.1, 4-5 and Par.66, disclose a door handle).
Regarding claim 14, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY disclose the powered door system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein at least one of the electric device and the smart glass are connected directly to the rechargeable battery (SEE ALTINER, Par.7, discloses the battery is connected to operate the door i.e. provide power to the pet door during a power outage).
Regarding claims 15-16, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY disclose the powered door system of claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising one or more additional electric devices mounted to or within the door slab (See ALTINER, Fig.4, discloses cameras 106,108, and user interface 122 comprising a speaker 125 mounted to the door slab 100).
Regarding claim 17, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY disclose the powered door system of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the controller is further configured to receive wireless signals (See ALTINER, Pars.49-50, disclose the controller receives wireless signals using the communication circuitry 114).
Regarding claim 18, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY disclose the powered door system of claim 17 as discussed above, wherein the controller is configured to receive data from a connected device (See ALTINER, Par.46, discloses the controller uses additional sensors such as cameras to monitor pet’s motion or behavior. The cameras are connected to the controller 104).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALTINER in view of ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY and in further view of LEARMONTH et al. (US 2021/0193979 A1, hereinafter LEARMONTH).
Regarding claims 3-4, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY disclose the powered door system of claim 1 as discussed above, However, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY do not disclose wherein the rechargeable battery includes a user interface that comprises a low power indicator, the low power indicator configured to display a low power status of the rechargeable battery.
LEARMONTH discloses a door comprising a rechargeable battery, the rechargeable battery includes a user interface that comprises a low power indicator, the low power indicator configured to display a low power status of the rechargeable battery (See Fig.3A, and Pars.54 and 62, disclose a door battery comprising an LED power indicator which illuminates in different colors according to the state of charge of the battery).
ALTINER, ALBERTELLI, GRIGSBY and LEARMONTH are analogous art since they all deal with doors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY with the teachings of LEARMONTH by adding a user interface that comprises a low power indicator to the rechargeable battery for the benefit of alerting the user to the charging status of the battery to either charge or replace.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable ALTINER in view of ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY and in further view of CAI (US 2015/0360445 A1, hereinafter CAI).
Regarding claim 6, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY disclose the powered door system of claim 1 as discussed above, However, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY do not disclose wherein the exterior door skin and the interior door skin are fiberglass.
CAI discloses a door comprising a wooden door, an exterior door skin and an interior door skin, wherein the exterior door skin and the interior door skin are fiberglass (See Par.11, discloses a wood door with a first fiberglass skin and a second fiber glass skin).
ALTINER, ALBERTELLI, GRIGSBY and CAI are analogous art since they both deal with door systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY with the teachings of CAI by using fiberglass for the first skin and the second skin for the benefit of providing a durable weather friendly door system.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALTINER in view of ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY and in further view of ZAINALEAIN (US 5,191,276, hereinafter ZAINALEAIN).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY disclose the powered door system of claim 1 as discussed above, However, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY do not disclose wherein the charging station includes a user interface that includes at least one of an input power indicator and a charging status indicator.
ZAINALEAIN discloses a charger comprising a user interface that includes a charging status indicator (See Fig.5, Item#62, and Col.5, lines 65-68 disclose an indicator comprising an LED which indicates when the charger is in a charging mode).
ALTINER, ALBERTELLI, GRIGSBY and ZAINALEAIN are analogous art since they all deal with power supplies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY with the teachings of ZAINALEAIN by adding a charging status indicator for the benefit of informing the user when the door battery is being charged by the charging station.
Regarding claim 8, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI, GRIGSBY and ZAINALEAIN disclose the powered door system of claim 7 as discussed above, However, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI, GRIGSBY and ZAINALEAIN as applied to claim 7 do not disclose wherein the user interface of the charging station includes the input power indicator, and wherein the input power indicator includes an LED light.
ZAINALEAIN further discloses wherein the user interface of the charger includes the input power indicator, and wherein the input power indicator includes an LED light (See Fig.5, Item#60, and Col.5, lines 65-68 disclose an indicator which stays on as long as the charger is receiving external power).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by ALTINER, ALBERTELLI, GRIGSBY and ZAINALEAIN as applied to claim 7 with the further teachings of ZAINALEAIN by adding an input power indicator comprising an LED to the charging station to inform the user when the charging station is not receiving power for the benefit of alerting to take remedial action such as flipping a tripped circuit breaker.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALTINER, ALBERTELLI, GRIGSBY and ZAINALEAIN and in further view of PK et al. (US 2021/0036535 A1, hereinafter PK).
Regarding claim 10, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI, GRIGSBY and ZAINALEAIN disclose the powered door system of claim 7 as discussed above, However, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI, GRIGSBY and ZAINALEAIN do not disclose wherein the user interface of the charging station further includes an indicator showing a fault status of the rechargeable battery connected thereto.
PK discloses a charger comprising a user interface of the charger further includes an indicator showing a fault status of the rechargeable battery connected thereto (See Fig.2, Item#230, Fig.3, Item#350 and Pars.41 and 48, disclose a charger comprising a battery fault detector to determine if there is a battery error and provide an output fault indicator by turning on LED).
ALTINER, ALBERTELLI, GRIGSBY, ZAINALEAIN and PK are analogous art since they all deal with power supplies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by ALTINER, ALBERTELLI, GRIGSBY and ZAINALEAIN with the teachings of PK by adding a battery fault indicator to the charging station for benefit of alerting the user when the battery needs to be replaced.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY and in further view of BANTER et al. (US 2014/0347163 A1, hereinafter BANTER).
Regarding claims 11-13, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY disclose the powered door system of claim 1 as discussed above, However, ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY do not disclose further comprising an internal battery disposed within an interior of the door slab, wherein the internal battery is configured for receiving power from the rechargeable battery via a charging circuit, and for powering an electric device when the rechargeable battery is removed from the door slab, wherein the charging circuit creates a wired or wireless connection between the rechargeable battery and interior battery.
BANTER discloses a vehicle access system comprising an internal battery with an interior of a door slab which receives power from a second battery (See Fig.2 and Pars.44 and 54-55 disclose a rechargeable power supply 100 which receives power from an internal power source 190 when the internal power source requires charging), for powering an electric device when the rechargeable battery is removed from the door slab (See Fig.2, discloses the power source 100 provides power to electric devices such as power latch 130, the power source 100 would continue to provide power to the power latch even when internal power source 190 is removed), wherein the charging circuit creates a wired or wireless connection between the rechargeable battery and interior battery (See Fig.2 and Pars.54-55 discloses the internal power source 190 provides power to the power supply 100. It is understood that the power is either provides via wired or wirelessly. Therefore, the claim limitations are met by the disclosure).
ALTINER, ALBERTELLI, GRIGSBY and BANTER are analogous art since they all deal with doors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by ALTINER, ALBERTELLI and GRIGSBY with the teachings of BANTER by adding a second internal battery for the benefit of allowing the smart door system to continue to operate while the rechargeable battery is removed from the door for maintenance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859