DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 24-43 are pending for examination in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 24-35, 37-39, 42-43 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (Fischer; US 2015/0266356) in view of Trani et al. (Trani; US 2016/0055692).
As per claim 24, Fischer teaches a control system for a vehicle to enable communication with a moveable barrier (one or more communications between vehicle and garage door; se e.g. para. [0048]), the control system comprising one or more controller configured to:
determine a current location of the vehicle relative the moveable barrier (determining a position and whether a vehicle is moving towards a garage barrier [relative to the garage]; see e.g. para. [0050]); and
generate a control signal in dependence on the location, the control signal being configured to control movement of the moveable barrier (generating a signal to open or close garage door; see e.g. para. [0050-51]).
Fischer does not explicitly teach to communicate with the moveable barrier for measuring a time of flight of a signal transmitted from the moveable barrier to the control system and/or from the control system to the moveable barrier.
Trani, however, teaches proximity related information of a remote control can be accomplished by measuring a time of flight of one or more signals transmitted from the moveable barrier to or from the remote controller, wherein the communication is accomplished using two or more individual antennas (see e.g. para. [0043] and [0058-59]), wherein the antennas are spaced apart from each other (see e.g. FIG. 2A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a control signal can be generated in the disclosed system of Fischer based on a proximity information which is ascertained using a remote communication, i.e. GPS location, or a direct communication, using time of flight and trilateration of the signals.
Fischer and Trani are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of providing improved accuracy in millimeter range which in turn may improve system’s reliability.
As per claim 25, a control system as claimed in claim 24 as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein the one or more controller comprises: at least one electronic processor having an electrical output for outputting the control signal to control the moveable barrier (one or more controller communicating with the vehicle, see e.g. para. [0053] of Fischer, and carrying out the controlled tasks i.e. opening or closing of the garage door as discussed earlier); and at least one memory device electrically coupled to the at least one electronic processor and having instructions stored therein (one or more memories storing rules or instructions related to the tasks, see e.g. para. [0057-58] of Fischer), and wherein the at least one electronic processor is configured to access the at least one memory device and execute the instructions therein so as to control the moveable barrier (it would have been obvious that the garage door is opened or closed based on the rules stores in the memory and the controller carrying out an open or close actions based on the rules).
As per claim 26, a control system as claimed in claim 24 as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein the generation of the control signal in dependence on the current distance comprises comparing the current distance to a first set distance whereby the control signal is generated if the current distance is less than or equal to the first set distance (see e.g. para. [0050] of Fischer).
As per claim 27, a control system as claimed in claim 26 as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein, in dependence on a determination that the current distance is less than or equal to the first set distance, the one or more controller generates the control signal comprising a first control signal to request movement of the moveable barrier to an open position (see e.g. para. [0050] of Fischer).
As per claim 28, a control system as claimed in claim 27 as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein the one or more controller is configured to determine if the current distance is increasing or decreasing (it is determined whether distance between the vehicle and garage is increasing or decreasing; see e.g. para. [0050-51]).
As per claim 29, a control system as claimed in claim 27 as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein the one or more controller is configured to generate the first control signal to request movement of the moveable barrier to the open position in dependence on a determination that the current distance is less than or equal to the first set distance and the current distance is decreasing (open the garage door if the determined distance is less than a threshold, ten feet for example; see e.g. para. [0050]).
As per claim 30, a control system as claimed in claim 24 as taught by Fischer and Cate, wherein the generation of the control signal in dependence on the current distance comprises comparing the current distance to a second set distance (determine if determined distance exceeds a second threshold, fifteen feet for example; see e.g. para. [0051] of Fischer).
As per claim 31, a control system as claimed in claim 30 as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein, in dependence on a determination that the current distance is greater than or equal to the second set distance, the one or more controller generates the control signal comprising a second control signal to request movement of the moveable barrier to a closed position (generate a command to close the garage door if the determined distance increased more than fifteen feet; see e.g. para. [0051] of Fischer).
As per claim 32, a control system as claimed in claim 31 as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein the one or more controller is configured to determine if the current distance is increasing or decreasing (continuously moving towards [decreasing distance] garage or moving away [increasing distance] from the garage; see e.g. FIG. 4A of Fischer).
As per claim 33, a control system as claimed in claim 31 as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein the one or more controller is configured to generate the second control signal to request movement of the moveable barrier to the closed position in dependence on a determination that the current distance is greater than or equal to the second threshold and the current distance is increasing (as discussed earlier, issuing a garage door close command or signal after determining that detected distance is more than a second threshold distance and is continuously increasing; see e.g. para. [0051] and FIG. 4A).
As per claim 34, a control system as claimed in claim 24 as taught by Fischer and Cate, wherein the one or more controller is configured to perform an authentication process with the moveable barrier (Cate teaches communicating identification of the remote control, see e.g. para. [0039], wherein it would have been obvious to a skilled person to compare the unique identifier with a stored identifier in order to avoid opening garage door for every vehicle which sends an identifier which is turn would improve security).
As per claim 35, a control system as claimed in claim 24 as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein the control system comprises a transmitter for transmitting the control signal (transmitting an open or close command to the user's garage door, see e.g. para. [0048] Fischer, wherein a transmitter is inherently there for the transmission).
As per claim 37, a control system as claimed in claim 24 as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein the generation of the control signal in dependence on the current distance comprises comparing the current distance to a third set distance (the third distance is interpreted as the second distance since they are not claimed to be different, wherein the comparison with the second distance is previously discussed, see e.g. para. [0051] of Fischer).
As per claim 38, a control system as claimed in claim 37 as taught by Fischer and Cate, wherein the one or more controller is configured to suppress generation of the first control signal in dependence on a determination that the current distance is less than or equal to the third set distance (the first control signal, i.e. opening of the garage door, is suppressed when the distance is less than or equal to the second distance or fifteen feet; see e.g. para. [0051] of Fischer).
As per claim 39, a control system as claimed in claim 24 a as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein the control signal to control movement of the barrier is generated only if a portable device associated with the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of one or both of the barrier and the vehicle (as discussed, the garage door is operated when a device or vehicle approaches close to a garage door and is within a predetermined distance; see e.g. para. [0048-50] of Fischer).
As per claim 42, Fischer teaches a method of controlling operation of a moveable barrier, the method comprising:
determining a location between a vehicle and the moveable barrier (determining a position and whether a vehicle is moving towards a garage barrier [relative to the garage]; see e.g. para. [0050]); and
displacing the moveable barrier to an open position or a closed position in dependence on the determined location (generating a signal to open or close a garage door based on current distance; see e.g. para. [0050-51]).
Fischer does not explicitly teach determining distance by measuring a time of flight of a signal transmitted from the moveable barrier to the control system and/or from the control system to the moveable barrier.
Trani, however, teaches proximity related (or geospatial) information of a remote control can be accomplished by measuring a time of flight of one or more signals transmitted from the moveable barrier to or from the remote controller, wherein the communication is accomplished using two or more individual antennas (see e.g. para. [0043] and [0058-59]), wherein the antennas are spaced apart from each other (see e.g. FIG. 2A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a control signal can be generated in the disclosed system of Fischer based on a proximity information which is ascertained using a remote communication, i.e. GPS location, or a direct communication, using time of flight and trilateration of the signals.
Fischer and Trani are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of providing improved accuracy in millimeter range which in turn may improve system’s reliability.
As per claim 43, a method as claimed in claim 42 as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein the method comprises comparing the determined current distance to a first set distance; the moveable barrier being displaced to the open position in dependence on a determination that the determined current distance is less than or equal to the first set distance (opening the garage door based on determining if current distance is less than a first threshold and the vehicle moving towards the garage; see e.g. para. [0050-51] of Fischer).
As per claim 44, a vehicle comprising a control system (the vehicle discussed in claim 1).
Claim 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Trani and father in view of Danev et al. (Danev; WO 2015/135630).
As per claim 36, a control system as claimed in claim 35 as taught by Fischer and Trani, except the claimed wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit the notification signal over a bandwidth greater than or equal to 500 MHz.
Samardzija, however, teaches an ultra-wideband transmitter is configured to transmit a signal over a bandwidth greater than or equal to 500 MHz (see e.g. para. [0040-43]). Similarly, it would have been obvious in the disclosed systems of Fischer and/or Cate to send/receive one or more notification signals using a UWB over or equal to 500 MHz.
Fischer, Samardzija and Trani are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the inherent benefit of low power consumption or greater noise immunity.
Claim 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Trani and father in view of Lickfelt et al. (Lickfelt; US 2019/0048644).
As per claim 40, a control system as claimed in claim 24 as taught by Fischer and Trani, wherein Fischer teaches that the control signal is generated only if the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of the barrier (as discussed earlier, a control signal to open a garage door is generated if the vehicle is with ten feet of the garage door; see e.g. para. [0050] of Fischer), but Fischer fails to teach that the control signal is generated in response to a user request.
Lickfelt, however, teaches that a control signal is generated in response to a user request (opening or closing command using a user interface; see e.g. para. [0059]). Fischer, Trani and Lickfelt are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teaching for the purpose of improved user control and/or security in a case where user is only driving by his/her garage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights