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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the lengthy information disclosure statement filed on 08/19/2025. There is no requirement that applicants explain the materiality of English language references, however the cloaking of a clearly relevant reference in a long list of references may not comply with applicants' duty to disclose, see Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, aff' d 479 F. 2d. 1338. There is no duty for the Examiner to consider these references to a greater extent than those ordinarily looked at during a regular search by the Examiner. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered these references in the same manner as references encountered during a normal search of Office search files.
Examiner Note
Examiner is not making a non-statutory double patenting rejection between this instant application and the parent patents because the claims disclose materially different operative limitation and relationships among those similar components (e.g. door, lock, network and server etc…).
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.
Claims 18, 22-35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soloway et al. US 20040090327 in view of Cregg et al. US 20150116075.
Regarding claim 18, Soloway et al. teach A system comprising: a lock to secure a door of a building, the lock configured to move a latch mechanism between (a) a position in which the door is locked and (b) another position in which the door is unlocked and movable; (Soloway et al. US 20040090327 abstract; paragraphs [0013]-[0015]; [0022]-[0032]; [0038]-[0045]; figures 1-5)
Referring first to FIG. 1, a standard entry door 10 is shown which is hinge-mounted in a doorframe 12. A door handle 14 (depicted as a door knob) is on door 10 as well as a deadbolt lock assembly 16, in this instance. Deadbolt lock assembly 16 includes a key chamber 18 which receives a key 19 and is operably connected to a bolt 20. Bolt 20 is operable to either retract within door 10 in its unlocked position or to extend from door 10 through a deadbolt hole on doorframe 12 in its locked position. FIG. 1 visually appears no different than the outside of any door incorporating a deadbolt lock assembly (Soloway et al. par. 22).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets a standard entry door 10 with deadbolt lock assembly for secure a building. Examiner interprets a bolt 20 as a latch mechanism.
and a base station configured to indicate a state of alarm in response to detection of an emergency condition at the building;
In the preferred embodiment of the present invention, sensor command unit 30 will include an illuminated display 34, a STAY button 36, an AWAY button 38, a BYPASS button 40, a SILENCE button 42, a fire emergency button 44, a police emergency button 46, an auxiliary emergency button 48 (that is typically wired to the central monitoring station), a siren 50, an electronic keyhole 52, and a motion sensor 54. As visible from FIG. 3, illuminated display 34 includes readable displays that state READY, ARMED, STAY, FIRE, TBL, and includes a light emitting diode (LED) 56. While many of the components shown in FIG. 3 are indeed optional, they have proven to provide the preferred means of practicing the present invention (Soloway et al. par. 25).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets sensor command unit 30 as a base station. For example, figure 3 disclose the sensor command 30 with the display 34 for indicate the state of the alarm like “READY”, “ARMED” “STAY” “FIRE” and/or “TBL”. The indication “FIRE” can be treated as an emergency condition.
Soloway et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the lock is configured to receive a command to lock the door, and after receiving the command: make a determination that the latch mechanism has failed to move to the position to lock the door, and after making the determination, cause the base station to enter an armed state.
Cregg et al. teach wherein the lock is configured to receive a command to lock the door, and after receiving the command: make a determination that the latch mechanism has failed to move to the position to lock the door, and after making the determination, cause the base station to enter an armed state. (Cregg et al. US 20150116075 abstract; [0004]-[0015]; [0045]-[0049]; [0055]; [0165] – [0168]; [0192]-[0193]; figures 1-24)
A door lock/unlock system for a building automatically controls locking and unlocking of a door. A door lock controller interfaces with an electronic door lock and receives messages including door lock commands from a local receiver. In turn, the local receiver interfaces with a hub device through a mesh network. The hub applies a rule set to make lock operation decisions, and sends messages comprising commands to operate the door lock through the mesh network to the local receiver. The local receiver decodes the messages and passes the commands to the door lock controller to automatically control the electronic door lock. A door state device checks the state of the door. When the checking mechanism indicates that the message was not received or the lock operation failed, the system alerts the user to take appropriate lock action (Cregg et al. par. 45). FIG. 1A illustrates a process 100 to alert a user when a door lock command fails. At step 102, the door lock/unlock system waits for a message instructing the door lock/unlock system to lock the electronic lock associated with the door. When the door lock message is received, the process 100 sends a signal to lock the electronic lock at step 104. At step 106, the process 100 queries a door state device and receives the state of the door. If the door is locked, the process 100 moves to step 102 and waits for the next door lock message. If the door is unlocked, the process 100 sends an alert to the user at step 110. Embodiments of the alert comprise an email, an audible or visual alarm, or the like (Cregg et al. par. 46).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets entering the alert state as the arm state when the door failed to lock after receiving the lock command.
Therefore, it would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to provide an alert when detecting a door fail to lock after received the lock command taught by Cregg et al. reference into the modified system of Soloway et al. reference for enhance a premise security around a house.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The system of Claim 18, wherein, after the base station enters the armed state, the base station indicates the state of alarm in response to movement of the door.
Briefly stated, and in accordance with the preferred embodiments of the present invention, a security alarm system which may be selectively armed or disarmed when monitoring a protected premises is described which utilizes the position of an entry door (as either closed or opened) to determine whether the security system should be armed or disarmed. The security system comprises (i) an entry door for permitting ingress to the protected premises from the outside of the entry door and egress from the protected premises from the inside of the entry door; (ii) means for selectively closing an opening the entry door; and (iii) a door contact having a first state indicative of said entry door being in a closed position and second state indicative of said entry door being in an open position wherein, when said door contact is in said first state, said security system is armed and, when said door contact is in said second state, said security system is disarmed (Soloway et al. par. 13).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The system of Claim 18, wherein, after making the determination, the base station enters an away mode of the armed state, wherein, in the away mode of the armed state, detection of movement within the building causes the base station to indicate the state of alarm.
STAY button 36 is pressed by a user to arm the system in a mode wherein at least one authorized person remains inside the protected premises. Perimeter devices such as windows and doors will remain protection, while interior protected devices such as motion sensors will become de-activated, allowing free movement throughout the interior portions of the protected premises. AWAY button 38 will be pressed by a user when exiting the premises at times when no authorized person remains in the interior of the protected premises. The system will be fully armed with all perimeter and interior sensors and detectors activated (Soloway et al. par. 31). Obviously, additional sensors can be installed, either on sensor command unit 30 or elsewhere, to assist in the decision making process of whether a user remains inside the premises. Motion sensor 54 also acts as an independent intrusion protection device. For instance, when the security alarm system is armed in an AWAY mode, motion sensor 54 provides intrusion protection for an extended range. The detection of an intruder will result in a corresponding central station report and an audible alarm. Motion sensor 54 can also be utilized to provide anti-tamper protection by utilizing a PIR that has side beams intended to prevent an intruder from walking along the wall toward sensor command unit 30. If an intruder is detected in the anti-tamper zone, the system will be put into a lock-out state for a period of several minutes, during which time the system may only be disarmed by a digital key 58 as set forth in FIG. 4. It is presumed that an intruder would not be in possession of an operable digital key (Soloway et al. par. 37).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets the security alarm will activating the alarm in response to detect any movement within a building via a motion sensor when “AWAY Mode” is selected.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The system of Claim 18, wherein, after making the determination, the base station enters a home mode of the armed state, wherein, in the home mode of the armed state, detection of movement within the building does not cause the base station to indicate the state of alarm.
STAY button 36 is pressed by a user to arm the system in a mode wherein at least one authorized person remains inside the protected premises. Perimeter devices such as windows and doors will remain protection, while interior protected devices such as motion sensors will become de-activated, allowing free movement throughout the interior portions of the protected premises (Soloway et al. par. 31).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets “Stay mode” as a home mode.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The system of Claim 18, wherein after making the determination: the base station initially enters a home mode of the armed state;
STAY button 36 is pressed by a user to arm the system in a mode wherein at least one authorized person remains inside the protected premises. Perimeter devices such as windows and doors will remain protection, while interior protected devices such as motion sensors will become de-activated, allowing free movement throughout the interior portions of the protected premises (Soloway et al. par. 31).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets “Stay mode” as a home mode.
and the base station subsequently enters an away mode of the armed state upon failing to detect motion in the building during a time period.
The security system of the present invention provides a vast array of new changes and operational modes, yet is simple for the user to operate. In one instance, a user will be arming the system while leaving the premises with no other family members or authorized personnel remaining in the home. If the green READY light is illuminated, the system is immediately ready to be armed. The user will simply depress AWAY button 30, to commence an exit delay period (typically sixty seconds) for which the user to close the door and exit the premises. If the door has not been closed within sixty seconds of pressing AWAY button 38, the security alarm system will revert back to a disarmed state. As a further advantage of the security alarm system of the present invention, if motion sensor 54 detects movement within the premises within sixty seconds of the depression of away button 38, the system will automatically revert to STAY mode thereby providing perimeter protection only (Soloway et al. par. 38).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The system of Claim 25, wherein the time period is between 15 seconds and 5 minutes.
The security system of the present invention provides a vast array of new changes and operational modes, yet is simple for the user to operate. In one instance, a user will be arming the system while leaving the premises with no other family members or authorized personnel remaining in the home. If the green READY light is illuminated, the system is immediately ready to be armed. The user will simply depress AWAY button 30, to commence an exit delay period (typically sixty seconds) for which the user to close the door and exit the premises. If the door has not been closed within sixty seconds of pressing AWAY button 38, the security alarm system will revert back to a disarmed state. As a further advantage of the security alarm system of the present invention, if motion sensor 54 detects movement within the premises within sixty seconds of the depression of away button 38, the system will automatically revert to STAY mode thereby providing perimeter protection only (Soloway et al. par. 38).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets 60 seconds is fall within the range between 15 seconds and 5 minutes.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The system of Claim 25, wherein in the away mode of the armed state, either detection of movement within the building or detection of movement of the door causes the base station to indicate the state of alarm.
The security system of the present invention provides a vast array of new changes and operational modes, yet is simple for the user to operate. In one instance, a user will be arming the system while leaving the premises with no other family members or authorized personnel remaining in the home. If the green READY light is illuminated, the system is immediately ready to be armed. The user will simply depress AWAY button 30, to commence an exit delay period (typically sixty seconds) for which the user to close the door and exit the premises. If the door has not been closed within sixty seconds of pressing AWAY button 38, the security alarm system will revert back to a disarmed state. As a further advantage of the security alarm system of the present invention, if motion sensor 54 detects movement within the premises within sixty seconds of the depression of away button 38, the system will automatically revert to STAY mode thereby providing perimeter protection only (Soloway et al. par. 38).
According to the cited passages and figure, examiner interprets the user had about 60 second to exit the house and close the door in response to “AWAY Mode” activated. If the system still detect user movement within the house after period of time, the alarm state will switch back to “STAY Mode”.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The system of Claim 25, wherein in the home mode of the armed state, detection of movement within the building does not cause the base station to indicate the state of alarm, but detection of movement of the door causes the base station to indicate the state of alarm.
STAY button 36 is pressed by a user to arm the system in a mode wherein at least one authorized person remains inside the protected premises. Perimeter devices such as windows and doors will remain protection, while interior protected devices such as motion sensors will become de-activated, allowing free movement throughout the interior portions of the protected premises (Soloway et al. par. 31).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets “STAY” as a home mode which the system is deactivate the motion sensor to allow user free movement throughout the interior while the system still monitoring (arm state) the perimeter devices like windows and doors remain in protection.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The system of Claim 18, wherein after making the determination: the base station initially enters an away mode of the armed state; and the base station subsequently enters a home mode of the armed state upon detecting motion in the building within a time period after initially entering the away mode.
The security system of the present invention provides a vast array of new changes and operational modes, yet is simple for the user to operate. In one instance, a user will be arming the system while leaving the premises with no other family members or authorized personnel remaining in the home. If the green READY light is illuminated, the system is immediately ready to be armed. The user will simply depress AWAY button 30, to commence an exit delay period (typically sixty seconds) for which the user to close the door and exit the premises. If the door has not been closed within sixty seconds of pressing AWAY button 38, the security alarm system will revert back to a disarmed state. As a further advantage of the security alarm system of the present invention, if motion sensor 54 detects movement within the premises within sixty seconds of the depression of away button 38, the system will automatically revert to STAY mode thereby providing perimeter protection only (Soloway et al. par. 38).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The system of Claim 18, wherein the lock is further configured to, after receiving the command, but before making the determination, move the latch mechanism from the another position.
A door lock/unlock system for a building automatically controls locking and unlocking of a door. A door lock controller interfaces with an electronic door lock and receives messages including door lock commands from a local receiver. In turn, the local receiver interfaces with a hub device through a mesh network. The hub applies a rule set to make lock operation decisions, and sends messages comprising commands to operate the door lock through the mesh network to the local receiver. The local receiver decodes the messages and passes the commands to the door lock controller to automatically control the electronic door lock. A door state device checks the state of the door. When the checking mechanism indicates that the message was not received or the lock operation failed, the system alerts the user to take appropriate lock action (Cregg et al. par. 45). FIG. 1A illustrates a process 100 to alert a user when a door lock command fails. At step 102, the door lock/unlock system waits for a message instructing the door lock/unlock system to lock the electronic lock associated with the door. When the door lock message is received, the process 100 sends a signal to lock the electronic lock at step 104. At step 106, the process 100 queries a door state device and receives the state of the door. If the door is locked, the process 100 moves to step 102 and waits for the next door lock message. If the door is unlocked, the process 100 sends an alert to the user at step 110. Embodiments of the alert comprise an email, an audible or visual alarm, or the like (Cregg et al. par. 46).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets entering the alert state as the arm state when the door failed to lock after receiving the lock command.
Regarding claim 31, Soloway et al. teach A method of controlling access at a lock to secure a door, the method comprising: receiving, by the lock, a command to move a latch mechanism of the lock between (a) a position in which the door is locked and (b) another position in which the door is unlocked and movable; (Soloway et al. US 20040090327 abstract; paragraphs [0013]-[0015]; [0022]-[0032]; [0038]-[0045]; figures 1-5)
Referring first to FIG. 1, a standard entry door 10 is shown which is hinge-mounted in a doorframe 12. A door handle 14 (depicted as a door knob) is on door 10 as well as a deadbolt lock assembly 16, in this instance. Deadbolt lock assembly 16 includes a key chamber 18 which receives a key 19 and is operably connected to a bolt 20. Bolt 20 is operable to either retract within door 10 in its unlocked position or to extend from door 10 through a deadbolt hole on doorframe 12 in its locked position. FIG. 1 visually appears no different than the outside of any door incorporating a deadbolt lock assembly (Soloway et al. par. 22).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets a standard entry door 10 with deadbolt lock assembly for secure a building. Examiner interprets a bolt 20 as a latch mechanism.
Soloway et al. do not explicitly teach after receiving the command, begin moving the latch mechanism from the another position; making a determination that the latch mechanism has failed to move to the position to lock the door; and after making the determination, causing a base station to enter an armed state.
Cregg et al. teach after receiving the command, begin moving the latch mechanism from the another position; making a determination that the latch mechanism has failed to move to the position to lock the door; and after making the determination, causing a base station to enter an armed state. (Cregg et al. US 20150116075 abstract; [0004]-[0015]; [0045]-[0049]; [0055]; [0165] – [0168]; [0192]-[0193]; figures 1-24)
A door lock/unlock system for a building automatically controls locking and unlocking of a door. A door lock controller interfaces with an electronic door lock and receives messages including door lock commands from a local receiver. In turn, the local receiver interfaces with a hub device through a mesh network. The hub applies a rule set to make lock operation decisions, and sends messages comprising commands to operate the door lock through the mesh network to the local receiver. The local receiver decodes the messages and passes the commands to the door lock controller to automatically control the electronic door lock. A door state device checks the state of the door. When the checking mechanism indicates that the message was not received or the lock operation failed, the system alerts the user to take appropriate lock action (Cregg et al. par. 45). FIG. 1A illustrates a process 100 to alert a user when a door lock command fails. At step 102, the door lock/unlock system waits for a message instructing the door lock/unlock system to lock the electronic lock associated with the door. When the door lock message is received, the process 100 sends a signal to lock the electronic lock at step 104. At step 106, the process 100 queries a door state device and receives the state of the door. If the door is locked, the process 100 moves to step 102 and waits for the next door lock message. If the door is unlocked, the process 100 sends an alert to the user at step 110. Embodiments of the alert comprise an email, an audible or visual alarm, or the like (Cregg et al. par. 46).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets entering the alert state as the arm state when the door failed to lock after receiving the lock command.
Therefore, it would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to provide an alert when detecting a door fail to lock after received the lock command taught by Cregg et al. reference into the modified method of Soloway et al. reference for enhance a premise security around a house.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The method of Claim 31, wherein, after making the determination, the base station enters an away mode of the armed state, wherein, in the away mode of the armed state, detection of movement at a monitored location causes the base station to indicate a state of alarm.
STAY button 36 is pressed by a user to arm the system in a mode wherein at least one authorized person remains inside the protected premises. Perimeter devices such as windows and doors will remain protection, while interior protected devices such as motion sensors will become de-activated, allowing free movement throughout the interior portions of the protected premises. AWAY button 38 will be pressed by a user when exiting the premises at times when no authorized person remains in the interior of the protected premises. The system will be fully armed with all perimeter and interior sensors and detectors activated (Soloway et al. par. 31). Obviously, additional sensors can be installed, either on sensor command unit 30 or elsewhere, to assist in the decision making process of whether a user remains inside the premises. Motion sensor 54 also acts as an independent intrusion protection device. For instance, when the security alarm system is armed in an AWAY mode, motion sensor 54 provides intrusion protection for an extended range. The detection of an intruder will result in a corresponding central station report and an audible alarm. Motion sensor 54 can also be utilized to provide anti-tamper protection by utilizing a PIR that has side beams intended to prevent an intruder from walking along the wall toward sensor command unit 30. If an intruder is detected in the anti-tamper zone, the system will be put into a lock-out state for a period of several minutes, during which time the system may only be disarmed by a digital key 58 as set forth in FIG. 4. It is presumed that an intruder would not be in possession of an operable digital key (Soloway et al. par. 37).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets the security alarm will activating the alarm in response to detect any movement within a building via a motion sensor when “AWAY Mode” is selected.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The method of Claim 31, wherein, after making the determination, the base station enters a home mode of the armed state, wherein, in the home mode of the armed state, detection of movement at a monitored location does not cause the base station to indicate a state of alarm.
STAY button 36 is pressed by a user to arm the system in a mode wherein at least one authorized person remains inside the protected premises. Perimeter devices such as windows and doors will remain protection, while interior protected devices such as motion sensors will become de-activated, allowing free movement throughout the interior portions of the protected premises (Soloway et al. par. 31).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets “Stay mode” as a home mode.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The method of Claim 31, further comprising, after the base station enters the armed state, indicating a state of alarm in response to movement of the door.
Briefly stated, and in accordance with the preferred embodiments of the present invention, a security alarm system which may be selectively armed or disarmed when monitoring a protected premises is described which utilizes the position of an entry door (as either closed or opened) to determine whether the security system should be armed or disarmed. The security system comprises (i) an entry door for permitting ingress to the protected premises from the outside of the entry door and egress from the protected premises from the inside of the entry door; (ii) means for selectively closing an opening the entry door; and (iii) a door contact having a first state indicative of said entry door being in a closed position and second state indicative of said entry door being in an open position wherein, when said door contact is in said first state, said security system is armed and, when said door contact is in said second state, said security system is disarmed (Soloway et al. par. 13).
Regarding claim 35, Soloway et al. teach A lock comprising: a latch mechanism to secure a door that is movable; and a processor configured to receive a command to move the latch mechanism between (a) a position in which the door is locked and (b) another position in which the door is unlocked and movable, (Soloway et al. US 20040090327 abstract; paragraphs [0013]-[0015]; [0022]-[0032]; [0038]-[0045]; figures 1-5)
Referring first to FIG. 1, a standard entry door 10 is shown which is hinge-mounted in a doorframe 12. A door handle 14 (depicted as a door knob) is on door 10 as well as a deadbolt lock assembly 16, in this instance. Deadbolt lock assembly 16 includes a key chamber 18 which receives a key 19 and is operably connected to a bolt 20. Bolt 20 is operable to either retract within door 10 in its unlocked position or to extend from door 10 through a deadbolt hole on doorframe 12 in its locked position. FIG. 1 visually appears no different than the outside of any door incorporating a deadbolt lock assembly (Soloway et al. par. 22).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets a standard entry door 10 with deadbolt lock assembly for secure a building. Examiner interprets a bolt 20 as a latch mechanism.
Soloway et al. do not explicitly teach after receiving the command, make a determination that the latch mechanism has failed to move to the position to lock the door, and after making the determination, cause a system to enter an armed state.
Cregg et al. teach after receiving the command, make a determination that the latch mechanism has failed to move to the position to lock the door, and after making the determination, cause a system to enter an armed state. (Cregg et al. US 20150116075 abstract; [0004]-[0015]; [0045]-[0049]; [0055]; [0165] – [0168]; [0192]-[0193]; figures 1-24)
A door lock/unlock system for a building automatically controls locking and unlocking of a door. A door lock controller interfaces with an electronic door lock and receives messages including door lock commands from a local receiver. In turn, the local receiver interfaces with a hub device through a mesh network. The hub applies a rule set to make lock operation decisions, and sends messages comprising commands to operate the door lock through the mesh network to the local receiver. The local receiver decodes the messages and passes the commands to the door lock controller to automatically control the electronic door lock. A door state device checks the state of the door. When the checking mechanism indicates that the message was not received or the lock operation failed, the system alerts the user to take appropriate lock action (Cregg et al. par. 45). FIG. 1A illustrates a process 100 to alert a user when a door lock command fails. At step 102, the door lock/unlock system waits for a message instructing the door lock/unlock system to lock the electronic lock associated with the door. When the door lock message is received, the process 100 sends a signal to lock the electronic lock at step 104. At step 106, the process 100 queries a door state device and receives the state of the door. If the door is locked, the process 100 moves to step 102 and waits for the next door lock message. If the door is unlocked, the process 100 sends an alert to the user at step 110. Embodiments of the alert comprise an email, an audible or visual alarm, or the like (Cregg et al. par. 46).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets entering the alert state as the arm state when the door failed to lock after receiving the lock command.
Therefore, it would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to provide an alert when detecting a door fail to lock after received the lock command taught by Cregg et al. reference into the modified system of Soloway et al. reference for enhance a premise security around a house.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. disclose The lock of Claim 35, wherein the processor is further configured to, after receiving the command, but before making the determination, begin moving the latch mechanism from the another position.
A door lock/unlock system for a building automatically controls locking and unlocking of a door. A door lock controller interfaces with an electronic door lock and receives messages including door lock commands from a local receiver. In turn, the local receiver interfaces with a hub device through a mesh network. The hub applies a rule set to make lock operation decisions, and sends messages comprising commands to operate the door lock through the mesh network to the local receiver. The local receiver decodes the messages and passes the commands to the door lock controller to automatically control the electronic door lock. A door state device checks the state of the door. When the checking mechanism indicates that the message was not received or the lock operation failed, the system alerts the user to take appropriate lock action (Cregg et al. par. 45). FIG. 1A illustrates a process 100 to alert a user when a door lock command fails. At step 102, the door lock/unlock system waits for a message instructing the door lock/unlock system to lock the electronic lock associated with the door. When the door lock message is received, the process 100 sends a signal to lock the electronic lock at step 104. At step 106, the process 100 queries a door state device and receives the state of the door. If the door is locked, the process 100 moves to step 102 and waits for the next door lock message. If the door is unlocked, the process 100 sends an alert to the user at step 110. Embodiments of the alert comprise an email, an audible or visual alarm, or the like (Cregg et al. par. 46).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets entering the alert state as the arm state when the door failed to lock after receiving the lock command.
Claims 19-21 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soloway et al. US 20040090327 in view of Cregg et al. US 20150116075 and further in view of Gerhardt et al. US 20120280790.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. teach all the limitation in the claim 18.
The combination of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. do not explicitly teach The system of Claim 18, further comprising a server in communication with the lock, wherein the command to lock the door is provided to the lock via the server.
Gerhardt et al. teach The system of Claim 18, further comprising a server in communication with the lock, wherein the command to lock the door is provided to the lock via the server. (Gerhardt et al. US 20120280790 abstract; paragraphs [0007]-[0010]; [0012]-[0018]; [0023]; [0037]; [0039]-[0048]; [0050]-[0054]; [0056]-[0060]; figures 1-34)
FIG. 4 demonstrates how the user's lock server (403) connects to the web service (400) by tunneling through the user's firewall (401). The server is also responsible for transmitting lock and unlock commands (also termed "requests" in this disclosure) or codes to the lock (Gerhardt et al. par. 40).
Therefore, it would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to provide a server for transmitting lock and unlock command taught by Gerhardt et al. reference into the modified system of Soloway et al. and Cregg et al. reference in order for the server to verify a credential to improve security process.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Soloway et al., Cregg et al. and Gerhardt et al. disclose The system of Claim 18, further comprising a server in communication with the lock, wherein the command to lock the door is received at a user device and provided to the lock via the server.
A user with a smart phone or portable electronic device (100) can authenticate through a combination of individual authentication methods. (Gerhardt et al. par. 56). If requested by a lock owner or administrator, an additional form of authentication would be a pin code (801) that would be entered on the phone before every action to manipulate the lock. If the pin code matches a pin code pre-designated by the user, then the user would be authenticated either for a single action or for a set period of time (i.e. five minutes during which any action against the lock may be executed) (Gerhardt et al. par. 58). Any actions by an authenticated user will be relayed to a local lock web server (802) near the door (on the secured side) that will in turn trigger either a remote control that wirelessly transmits commands to the door lock or an electrical relay that is directly wired into the door lock or strike of the door (Gerhardt et al. par. 59).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Soloway et al., Cregg et al. and Gerhardt et al. disclose The system of Claim 20, wherein the server is configured to send a notification to the user device, the notification indicating that the latch mechanism failed to move to the position to lock the door.
A door lock/unlock system for a building automatically controls locking and unlocking of a door. A door lock controller interfaces with an electronic door lock and receives messages including door lock commands from a local receiver. In turn, the local receiver interfaces with a hub device through a mesh network. The hub applies a rule set to make lock operation decisions, and sends messages comprising commands to operate the door lock through the mesh network to the local receiver. The local receiver decodes the messages and passes the commands to the door lock controller to automatically control the electronic door lock. A door state device checks the state of the door. When the checking mechanism indicates that the message was not received or the lock operation failed, the system alerts the user to take appropriate lock action (Cregg et al. par. 45). FIG. 1A illustrates a process 100 to alert a user when a door lock command fails. At step 102, the door lock/unlock system waits for a message instructing the door lock/unlock system to lock the electronic lock associated with the door. When the door lock message is received, the process 100 sends a signal to lock the electronic lock at step 104. At step 106, the process 100 queries a door state device and receives the state of the door. If the door is locked, the process 100 moves to step 102 and waits for the next door lock message. If the door is unlocked, the process 100 sends an alert to the user at step 110. Embodiments of the alert comprise an email, an audible or visual alarm, or the like (Cregg et al. par. 46). Further, hub 250 can be configured to receive messages containing data from the local controller 2000 via the local receiver 1800 and the network 200. The hub 250 can further be configured to provide information to a user through the computer 230, and can be configured to provide data and/or commands to the local controller 2000 via the local receiver 1800 and the network 200 (Cregg et al. par. 55).
According to the cited passages and figures examiner interprets the computer 230 as the user device for receiving the alert message regarding the door failure to lock.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Soloway et al., Cregg et al. and Gerhardt et al. disclose The lock of Claim 35, wherein: the command to move the latch mechanism is received from a server; and the processor is further configured to send, to the server, (Gerhardt et al. US 20120280790 abstract; paragraphs [0007]-[0010]; [0012]-[0018]; [0023]; [0037]; [0039]-[0048]; [0050]-[0054]; [0056]-[0060]; figures 1-34)
FIG. 4 demonstrates how the user's lock server (403) connects to the web service (400) by tunneling through the user's firewall (401). The server is also responsible for transmitting lock and unlock commands (also termed "requests" in this disclosure) or codes to the lock (Gerhardt et al. par. 40).
a notification indicating that the latch mechanism failed to move to the position to lock the door.
A door lock/unlock system for a building automatically controls locking and unlocking of a door. A door lock controller interfaces with an electronic door lock and receives messages including door lock commands from a local receiver. In turn, the local receiver interfaces with a hub device through a mesh network. The hub applies a rule set to make lock operation decisions, and sends messages comprising commands to operate the door lock through the mesh network to the local receiver. The local receiver decodes the messages and passes the commands to the door lock controller to automatically control the electronic door lock. A door state device checks the state of the door. When the checking mechanism indicates that the message was not received or the lock operation failed, the system alerts the user to take appropriate lock action (Cregg et al. par. 45). FIG. 1A illustrates a process 100 to alert a user when a door lock command fails. At step 102, the door lock/unlock system waits for a message instructing the door lock/unlock system to lock the electronic lock associated with the door. When the door lock message is received, the process 100 sends a signal to lock the electronic lock at step 104. At step 106, the process 100 queries a door state device and receives the state of the door. If the door is locked, the process 100 moves to step 102 and waits for the next door lock message. If the door is unlocked, the process 100 sends an alert to the user at step 110. Embodiments of the alert comprise an email, an audible or visual alarm, or the like (Cregg et al. par. 46). Further, hub 250 can be configured to receive messages containing data from the local controller 2000 via the local receiver 1800 and the network 200. The hub 250 can further be configured to provide information to a user through the computer 230, and can be configured to provide data and/or commands to the local controller 2000 via the local receiver 1800 and the network 200 (Cregg et al. par. 55).
According to the cited passages and figures examiner interprets the computer 230 as the user device for receiving the alert message regarding the door failure to lock.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG D TRAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm (pacific time).
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 A 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.
/THANG D TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686
