DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s response received on 03/05/2026.
The application has claims 1-23 present. All present claims have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 11, 16, 18-19, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMahon (US 7298107).
In regards to claims (1 and 23), McMahon discloses a barrier operator for moving a barrier (see abstract), comprising: a motor couplable to a drive mechanism of a barrier and configured to move the barrier between open and closed positions; a controller operably connected to the motor (see FIG. 1 and at least Col. 2 lines 55 to Col. 3 line 2: barrier movement operator with motor and controller); a sensor configured to monitor an operating parameter of the barrier operator associated with movement of the barrier (see abstract and at least Col. 2 lines 55 to Col. 3 line 38: sensor that monitors operation in order to generate a signal -force signal- based on sensor detection); and a control module including user input controls, the control module in operative communication with the controller (see abstract and at least Col. 3 lines 39-55, Col. 4 lines 28-40: input commands),
wherein the controller is configured to: receive a first user input from the control module; initiate, in response to receipt of the first user input, operation of the motor for a first movement of the barrier to establish a first travel limit of the barrier (see Col 4. Line 41 to Col. 5 line 3: user input to set limits. A user may initiate, while the door is in the closed position, a force learning cycle by pushing and holding the button until the door reaches the open limit position; the fact that the barrier is in a closed position, and is then opened by a user holding a button until the barrier reaches the open limit position, clearly teaches of a travel (closed to open) limit);
receive a first signal indicative of the operating parameter from the sensor; generate, during the first movement of the barrier to establish the first travel limit, a first force limit based on the first signal from the sensor (see Col 4. Line 41 to Col. 5 line 3: user input to set limits, receiving force sensor data and producing force profile “the user interface may take a configuration, as illustrated in FIG. 3, wherein a user interface 22b is provided and is adapted to be connected to the microcontroller 16 via a communications link 27b in place of the communications link or channel 27. User interface 22b includes door opening and closing pushbutton switches 24 and 26, a visual display 30a and a user operable push button switch 34 which may be manipulated in such a way as to set the door closing force setpoint or door opening force setpoint and which action automatically sets the limiting force value in the other direction of movement of the door. By way of example, the operator control unit 10 may be placed in a force learning cycle mode wherein, during operation of the motor 12 to move the barrier or door between an open and closed position, the microcontroller 16 learns the force required to open and close the door through signals related to speed of the motor, current applied to the motor or a force value sensed by a suitable force sensor. Accordingly, a user of the operator control unit 10, starting with the barrier or door in the closed position, may initiate a force learning cycle by pushing and holding the pushbutton switch 24 until the door reaches the open limit position. This would establish a force profile measured by the microcontroller 16. The force profile in the door closing direction could be generated by pushing and holding the pushbutton switch 26 in the closed position until the door reaches the closed limit position which would establish the force or motor torque profile in the barrier or door closing direction. The device 28 would be placed in a zero or minimum force setting position prior to actuation of the switches 24 and 26”).
In regards to claim 5, McMahon discloses wherein the sensor is a force sensor and the operating parameter is a force applied to move the barrier (see Col. 1 line 59 to Col. 2 line 20, Col 4. Line 41 to Col. 5 line 3: receiving force sensor data and producing force profile and values).
In regards to claim 6, McMahon discloses wherein the first force limit is a force profile based on a plurality of forces applied to move the barrier during the first movement of the barrier, each force of the plurality of forces corresponding to a respective position of the barrier (see Col. 1 line 59 to Col. 2 line 20, Col. 3 lines 33-38, Col 4. Line 41 to Col. 5 line 3: force profile, force setpoints and producing force profile and values).
In regards to claim 7, McMahon discloses wherein the first force limit is a single value based on a maximum force applied to move the barrier during the first movement of the barrier (see at least col.3 line 66 to Col. 4 line 27: the set value is a single value obtained by using the force value plus a constant value).
In regards to claim 8, McMahon discloses wherein the sensor is a current sensor and the operating parameter is a current supplied to the motor to move the barrier during the first movement of the barrier (see Col. 2 lines 65 to Col. 3 line 2, Col. 4 line 53 to Col. 5 line 3: current sensor measuring current to motor).
In regards to claim 9, McMahon discloses, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a force applied to move the barrier based on the current supplied to the motor (see Col. 2 lines 65 to Col. 3 line 2, Col. 4 line 53 to Col. 5 line 3, and claim 5: determine a force using current sensor measuring current to motor).
In regard to claim 11, discloses wherein the first force limit is a single value based on a maximum current supplied to the motor during the first movement of the barrier (see at least col.3 line 66 to Col. 4 line 27: the set value is a single value obtained by using the force value plus a constant value).
In regard to claim 16, McMahon discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: generate a second force limit based on the first force limit, the second force limit corresponding to movement of the barrier in a direction opposite to a direction of the first movement of the barrier (see at least Col. 4 line 53 to Col. 5 line 3: second force limit on the opposite direction).
In regard to claim 18, McMahon discloses, wherein the first movement of the barrier is an opening movement beginning from a closed position of the barrier, and wherein the first travel limit is an open limit position of the barrier (see abstract and see at least Col. 4 line 53 to Col. 5 line 3: teaches starting from close position. A user may initiate, while the door is in the closed position, a force learning cycle by pushing and holding the button until the door reaches the open limit position.).
In regard to claim 19, McMahon discloses wherein the first user input is a momentary input (see at least Col. 3 Line 41-43: “pushbutton or momentary switches 24 and 26 for controlling operation of a barrier connected to the motor”).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leivenson (US 20130020969).
In regards to claim 2, McMahon teaches wherein the first user input is a sustained input detected by the user input controls (see Col 4. Line 41 to Col. 5 line 3: user input holding the button until reaches limit position).
Although McMahon teach setting that the setup requires pushing and holding the pushbutton until reaches the positions (Col 4. Line 41 to Col. 5 line 3), it doesn’t specifically mention wherein the controller is further configured to: at least one of cease operation or reverse a direction of the motor upon termination of the sustained input.
Leivenson teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: at least one of cease operation or reverse a direction of the motor upon termination of the sustained input. (see at least para 10-12: teaches push button command and releasing the button to stop the movement).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Leivenson with the teachings of McMahon in order to stop the movement of the barrier/door when the button is released, since it would facilitate for the controller to interpret to stop when the position has been reached.
In regards to claim 3, McMahon doesn’t specifically teach wherein the user input controls comprise a button, and wherein the sustained input is an extended press of the button, the operation of the motor occurring only while the button is pressed.
Leivenson teaches wherein the user input controls comprise a button, and wherein the sustained input is an extended press of the button, the operation of the motor occurring only while the button is pressed (see at least para 10-12: teaches push button command and realizing the button to stop the movement).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Leivenson with the teachings of McMahon in order to stop the movement of the barrier/door when the button is released, since it would facilitate for the controller to interpret to stop when the position has been reached.
In regards to claim 4, McMahon doesn’t specifically teach wherein the user input controls comprise a first user input control, and wherein the sustained input is an extended user interaction with the first user input control, the operation of the motor occurring only while a user is actively interacting with the first user input control.
Leivenson teaches wherein the user input controls comprise a first user input control, and wherein the sustained input is an extended user interaction with the first user input control, the operation of the motor occurring only while a user is actively interacting with the first user input control (see at least para 10-12: teaches push button command and realizing the button to stop the movement).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Leivenson with the teachings of McMahon in order to stop the movement of the barrier/door when the button is released, since it would facilitate for the controller to interpret to stop when the position has been reached.
Claim(s) 10, 12-13, 15 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Murphy et al. (US 20070001637).
In regards to claim 10, McMahon doesn’t specifically teach wherein the first force limit is a current profile comprising a plurality of currents supplied to the motor during the first movement of the barrier, each current of the plurality of currents corresponding to a respective position of the barrier
Murphy teaches wherein the first force limit is a current profile comprising a plurality of currents supplied to the motor during the first movement of the barrier, each current of the plurality of currents corresponding to a respective position of the barrier (see at least para 15, 21-22: teaches measuring currents and generating a profile of current values while the door is moving).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Murphy with the teachings of McMahon in order to generate a current profile with current values as a barrier/door is moving, since it would facilitate for the controller to store, calculate and use these values for improving setting force values to operate the barrier/door when its operated to open or close and make determination to stop or reverse the door movement (see para 16).
In regards to claim 12, McMahon doesn’t specifically teach wherein the sensor is a position sensor and the operating parameter is a velocity of the barrier during the first movement of the barrier.
Murphy teaches wherein the sensor is a position sensor and the operating parameter is a velocity of the barrier during the first movement of the barrier (see at least para 12, 15-16: teaches using a sensor to measure speed and input required/appropriate values to me microprocessor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Murphy with the teachings of McMahon in order to sense speed values as a barrier/door is moving, since it would facilitate for the controller to store, calculate and use these values for improving setting force values to operate the barrier/door when its operated to open or close and make determination to stop or reverse the door movement (see para 16).
In regards to claim 13, McMahon doesn’t specifically teach wherein the first force limit is a velocity profile comprising a plurality of minimum velocities corresponding to a plurality of positions of the barrier.
Murphy teaches wherein the first force limit is a velocity profile comprising a plurality of minimum velocities corresponding to a plurality of positions of the barrier (see at least para 12, 15-16: teaches using a sensor to measure speed and input required/appropriate values to me microprocessor).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Murphy with the teachings of McMahon in order to sense speed values as a barrier/door is moving, since it would facilitate for the controller to store, calculate and use these values for improving setting force values to operate the barrier/door when its operated to open or close and make determination to stop or reverse the door movement (see para 16).
In regards to claim 15, McMahon doesn’t specifically teach wherein the first signal is a continuous stream of information transmitted by the sensor to the controller during the first movement of the barrier.
Murphy teaches wherein the first signal is a continuous stream of information transmitted by the sensor to the controller during the first movement of the barrier (see at least para 12, 15-16: teaches using a sensor to measure values like speed, current and input required/appropriate values to me microprocessor. The microprocessor continuously monitors while operating opening or closing the door).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Murphy with the teachings of McMahon in order to sense values as a barrier/door is moving and thus send a continuous stream of data during use, since it would facilitate for the controller to store, calculate and use these values for improving setting force values to operate the barrier/door when its operated to open or close and make determination to stop or reverse the door movement (see para 16).
In regards to claim 21, McMahon doesn’t specifically teach wherein the controller is further configured to: monitor the operating parameter during movement of the barrier subsequent to the first movement of the barrier; compare the operating parameter during the movement of the barrier subsequent to the first movement of the barrier to the first force limit; and at least one of cease operation or reverse a direction of the motor when the operating parameter exceeds the first force limit.
Murphy teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: monitor the operating parameter during movement of the barrier subsequent to the first movement of the barrier; compare the operating parameter during the movement of the barrier subsequent to the first movement of the barrier to the first force limit; and at least one of cease operation or reverse a direction of the motor when the operating parameter exceeds the first force limit. (See at least para 15, 21-22: teaches measuring parameters and generating a profile of values while the door is moving. Using the profiles to determine exceeding values and stopping or reversing the barrier).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Murphy with the teachings of McMahon in order to generate a parameters profile with values as a barrier/door is moving, since it would facilitate for the controller to store, calculate and use these values for improving setting force values to operate the barrier/door when its operated to open or close and make determination to stop or reverse the door movement (see para 16).
In regards to claim 22, McMahon doesn’t specifically teach wherein the controller is further configured to: detect whether an external entrapment device is in operative communication with the barrier operator; and set, when the external entrapment device is not detected, a reduced maximum operating speed of the motor.
Murphy teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: detect whether an external entrapment device is in operative communication with the barrier operator; and set, when the external entrapment device is not detected, a reduced maximum operating speed of the motor (see at least abstract and para 01, 13-16, 18: making determination if external entrapment is or not connected and if not then setting other values (lower) to operate the barrier).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Murphy with the teachings of McMahon in order to make determination for external entrapment in order to modify the barrier operation, since it would be improving setting force values and the security and operation of the barrier (see at least para 01, 16, 18).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon and Murphy as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mullet et al. (US 20030062865).
In regards to claim 14, McMahon doesn’t specifically teach wherein the first force limit is a single value based on a minimum velocity of the barrier during the first movement of the barrier.
Mullet teaches wherein the first force limit is a single value based on a minimum velocity of the barrier during the first movement of the barrier (see at least para 10 teaches storing the lowest speed to be used in obstruction detection).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Mullet with the teachings of McMahon in order to sense speed and stored minimum values as a barrier/door is moving, since it would facilitate for the controller to store, calculate and use these values for improving the operate the barrier/door when its operated to open or close and make determination for obstacles (see para 10).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon (US 7298107), in view of Willard et al. (US 7122986).
In regard to claim 17, McMahon teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a second user input from the control module; initiate, in response to receipt of the second user input, operation of the motor for a second movement of the barrier to establish a second limit of the barrier; receive a second signal indicative of the operating parameter from the sensor; and generate, during the second movement of the barrier to establish, a second force limit based on the second signal from the sensor (see abstract and see at least Col. 4 line 53 to Col. 5 line 3: second force limit on the opposite direction. The user holds the other pushbutton to establish the second limit. Col. 3 lines 39-55, Col. 4 lines 28-40: input commands).
McMahon doesn’t specifically teach a second movement of the barrier to establish a second travel limit; during the second movement of the barrier to establish a travel limit based on the second signal from the sensor.
However, Willard teaches a second movement of the barrier to establish a second travel limit; during the second movement of the barrier to establish a travel limit based on the second signal from the sensor (see at least Col 13 lines 32-48 and claim 53: teaches the use of sensors for setting travel limits, where a sensor signal is used for position data, which is used for setting travel limits).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Willard and combine it with the teachings of McMahon in order to be able to use a sensor to set travel limits, since it would provide a performance improvement over other means to detect and set limits like over limit switches (see at least Col 13 lines 32-48).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon (US 7298107).
In regard to claim 20, although McMahon doesn’t specifically teach wherein the first movement of the barrier is a closing movement beginning from an open position of the barrier, and wherein the first travel limit is a closed limit position of the barrier.
McMahon does teach allowing the user do set the limits in both directions and also that before any of the directions is started the values would be set to zero so as to properly establish the limit during the learning cycle (see at least Col. 4 line 53 to Col. 5 line 3 and also Col. 5 lines 64 to Col. 6 line 15. “the user interface may take a configuration, as illustrated in FIG. 3, wherein a user interface 22b is provided and is adapted to be connected to the microcontroller 16 via a communications link 27b in place of the communications link or channel 27. User interface 22b includes door opening and closing pushbutton switches 24 and 26, a visual display 30a and a user operable push button switch 34 which may be manipulated in such a way as to set the door closing force setpoint or door opening force setpoint and which action automatically sets the limiting force value in the other direction of movement of the door. By way of example, the operator control unit 10 may be placed in a force learning cycle mode wherein, during operation of the motor 12 to move the barrier or door between an open and closed position, the microcontroller 16 learns the force required to open and close the door through signals related to speed of the motor, current applied to the motor or a force value sensed by a suitable force sensor. Accordingly, a user of the operator control unit 10, starting with the barrier or door in the closed position, may initiate a force learning cycle by pushing and holding the pushbutton switch 24 until the door reaches the open limit position. This would establish a force profile measured by the microcontroller 16. The force profile in the door closing direction could be generated by pushing and holding the pushbutton switch 26 in the closed position until the door reaches the closed limit position which would establish the force or motor torque profile in the barrier or door closing direction. The device 28 would be placed in a zero or minimum force setting position prior to actuation of the switches 24 and 26”).).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these of McMahon in order to be able to use start the setting process from either direction including to close the barrier, since it would provide easier means to program the barrier limits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination fails to teach the limitations as provided by the claim language. Specifically, applicant argues that McMahon fails to teach travel limit. Examiner respectfully disagrees. McMahon teaches using push button in the process. McMahon teaches:
“By way of example, the operator control unit 10 may be placed in a force learning
cycle mode wherein, during operation of the motor 12 to move the barrier or door
between an open and closed position, the microcontroller 16 learns the force
required to open and close the door through signals related to speed of the motor,
current applied to the motor or a force value sensed by a suitable force sensor.
Accordingly, a user of the operator control unit 10, starting with the barrier or door
in the closed position, may initiate a force learning cycle by pushing and holding
the pushbutton switch 24 until the door reaches the open limit position. This
would establish a force profile measured by the microcontroller 16. The force
profile in the door closing direction could be generated by pushing and holding the
pushbutton switch 26 in the closed position until the door reaches the closed limit
position which would establish the force or motor torque profile in the barrier or
door closing direction. The device 28 would be placed in a zero or minimum force
setting position prior to actuation of the switches 24 and 26”.
The specification of the instant application says in Par. 30 – that the user sets the travel limit by pressing a button to allow the barrier to move upward while pressing the button. Then, upon the barrier reaching the fully open position, the user releases the button and the barrier stops. The stopped position is stored in memory and is considered the “open” position travel limit. In the same way in the prior art, by means of a push button, the user controls the movement of the barrier until it reaches a limit position. As the prior art says, during a learning cycle and using a push button, the user activates the button and let’s go of the button which would stop the barrier at a limit when the button is released. Nowhere the portions of the prior art do not teach that the limits have already been set but teaches the use of the push button, requiring the user to hold the button until such time for a close or open limit which could be at any point the user stops pushing/releases the button. The prior art col 4 lines 52-58 teach that the control unit can be placed in a force learning cycle mode, wherein during operation of the motor to move the door between open and closed positions (this shows the limitation of “during the first movement of the barrier to establish the first travel limit (open limit position)”), the microcontroller learns the force required to open and close the door (this teaches the limitation of “generate a first force limit”) through signal related to speed of the motor, current applied to the motor or a force value sensed by s suitable force sensor (this shows the limitation of “a force limits based on the signal from a sensor”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights