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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 12/24/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 5-7, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincaid et al. (US 20210158637 A1) in view of Ion (US 20200141172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kincaid discloses a movable barrier operating system comprising:
a movable barrier operator configured to open and close a movable barrier ([0034] teaches auto-operators, barrier control devices, and peripheral controllers of a barrier to a passageway), i.e., operators that actuate doors/barriers);
at least one ultra-wideband device associated with the movable barrier operator and electrically configured to receive ultra-wideband radio frequency signals ([0033], [0039]: discloses UWB devices (e.g., UWB device 102/104) having an antenna system and communication circuitry configured to use the antenna system to communicate with other devices via UWB-based communication; [0004] and [0013]: discloses the first computing device associated with the access-control device includes UWB communication circuitry and determines a location based on at least one UWB communication signal received from the second computing device. Thus, Kincaid teaches at least one UWB device associated with the operator that is electrically configured to receive UWB signals.); and
a processor operatively connected to the at least one ultra-wideband device and configured to use the ultra-wideband radio signals to determine a status of the movable barrier ([0042]-[0048]: discloses computing devices including a processing device and memory executing logic; [0060]: discloses a processor using UWB signal to determine a status (e.g., position/state) of the movable barrier; [0010], [0019]: discloses using UWB-derived location/intent to control barrier state (e.g., determining “a duration of time for which the access control device is to retain open a barrier…based on the location”); [0062] disclose an auto-operator keep a barrier open until passage is complete.).
However, Kincaid does not expressly disclose a photo eve system configured to detect an object in a path of the movable barrier. While Kincaid [0040] broadly lists optical sensors, motion sensors, and cameras among the sensor types that may be associated with its UWB devices, these sensors are expressly described as being configured to detect "characteristics of the physical environment of the UWB device 102" for purposes of access control and UWB positioning — they are not positioned across the movable barrier's travel path to detect arbitrary physical obstructions during a closing cycle, and Kincaid discloses no sensor verification protocol of the type required for UL 325 compliance. Accordingly, Kincaid's broad sensor disclosure does not teach a photo eye system configured to detect an object in the path of the movable barrier.
Ion expressly discloses a photo eye system configured to detect an object in the path of a movable barrier. Ion [0026] discloses that door control system 100 includes sensor 112, which "is a photo eye sensor configured to detect the presence of an object in close proximity." Ion [0026] further discloses that "if a person or another object is located in the path of door 106, the sensor 112 detects the presence of this object and prevents door 106 from being lowered, thus avoiding potential injury to the person, damage to the object, and damage to the door 106." Ion [0042]–[0043] further discloses that sensor 112 is affixed to railing 110 "normally within a metre or less from the ground," physically positioned to detect any object in the travel path of the door during a closing cycle regardless of whether that object carries any electronic device. Accordingly, Ion teaches a photo eye system configured to detect an object in the path of a movable barrier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ion's photo eye system into Kincaid's UWB-based movable barrier operator system for the following reasons. Kincaid explicitly contemplates deployment of its UWB-based system in conjunction with garage doors ([0058]), which are subject to the UL 325 safety standard — a well-known industry requirement that Ion expressly discloses mandates the use and verification of a photo eye sensor before each closing cycle (Ion [0045]–[0051]). A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to commercialize a UWB-based garage door operator of the type disclosed in Kincaid would therefore have been legally and commercially motivated to incorporate a UL 325-compliant photo eye system of the type taught by Ion. Beyond regulatory compliance, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kincaid's UWB system — which operates exclusively with authorized, UWB-transmitting devices and cannot detect persons, animals, or objects lacking active UWB transmitters — and Ion's photo eye system — which detects any physical object in the door's travel path regardless of whether it carries electronics — serve categorically distinct and complementary functions, such that their combination represents the predictable integration of two well-known, non-overlapping safety and access control technologies to produce a complete, code-compliant barrier operator system with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, Kincaid in view of Ion discloses a movable barrier operating system of claim 1 wherein the status of the movable barrier includes one of opened (Kincaid [0040], [0060]), closed (Kincaid [0040], [0060]), opening (Kincaid [0058], [0062]), closing (Kincaid [0058], [0062]), stopped (Kincaid [0010], [0019], [0062]), or an intermediate position between opened and closed (Kincaid [0040], [0060]). The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Kincaid discloses the method of operating a movable barrier operating system, the method comprising:
determining a distance between a source of a detected ultra-wideband signal and a specific location ([0004], [0006]–[0007], [0015]–[0016], [0021]–[0023], [0051]: discloses determining distance between a UWB-enabled device and an access-control device using time of flight of UWB signals); and
determining an identity of the source of the detected ultra-wideband signal ([0008], [0017], [0035], [0059]: teaching credentialing and BLE virtual credentials to identify and authenticate the user/device associated with the UWB signal); and
performing a movable barrier operator system operation based on the distance and the identity of the source ([0010], [0019], [0035], [0056], [0058], [0062]: discloses performing barrier operations (open, close, stop) based on proximity and identity determinations), the movable barrier operator system including one or more of a state change operation ([0010], [0019]: the system determines how long to retain open a barrier based on UWB-determined device location; [0058]: the UWB device is used “in conjunction with… bay doors… garage doors” to open and/or close doors automatically when an authorized device is detected. [0062]: an “auto-operator” keeps the barrier open until a user has passed through, then closes the barrier immediately after passage) and/or a proximity-based operation of the movable barrier operator system ([0007], [0016]: UWB ranging (time-of-flight, angle of arrival) determines whether the second computing device is within a predetermined distance or direction relative to the barrier; [0014]–[0015]: the first computing device determines whether the location of the second computing device indicates an intent to access the passageway; [0056]: enhanced zone control: barrier transitions between locked/unlocked depending on whether a user’s UWB tag is within a threshold distance/region).
However, Kincaid does not expressly disclose "an anti-entrapment operation"; nonetheless, Ion teaches anti-entrapment safety features in door control systems, including photo-eye sensors configured to detect the presence of an object in the path of the door and causing the controller to stop or reverse the closing operation when such an object is detected (Ion [0026], [0042]–[0044]). Ion further describes compliance with UL 325 safety standards, requiring verification of such safety sensors before a close cycle (Ion [0045]–[0051]). Furthermore, the claim additionally recites performing an anti-entrapment operation using a photo eye system of the movable barrier operating system: Kincaid does not expressly disclose performing an anti-entrapment operation using a photo eye system of the movable barrier operating system. While Kincaid [0040] broadly lists optical sensors, motion sensors, and cameras among the sensor types that may be associated with its UWB devices, these sensors are expressly described as being configured to detect "characteristics of the physical environment of the UWB device 102" for purposes of access control and UWB positioning — they are not positioned across the movable barrier's travel path to detect arbitrary physical obstructions during a closing cycle, and Kincaid discloses no sensor verification protocol of the type required for UL 325 compliance. Accordingly, Kincaid's broad sensor disclosure does not teach a photo eye system configured to detect an object in the path of the movable barrier. Ion expressly teaches this limitation. Ion [0026] discloses that sensor 112 is a photo eye sensor that detects the presence of an object in the path of door 106 and prevents the door from being lowered when such an object is detected. Ion [0042]–[0044] further discloses that controller 310 is configured to interrupt a close operation when sensor 112 detects an object in the travel path of the door, and that controller 310 may additionally illuminate lights or sound an audio alert to indicate to nearby users that an object is blocking the path of the door. Accordingly, Ion teaches performing an anti-entrapment operation using a photo eye system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ion's photo eye anti-entrapment system into Kincaid's UWB-based movable barrier operator system. The motivation to combine is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 1. In particular, Kincaid explicitly contemplates deployment of its UWB-based system in conjunction with garage doors ([0058]), which are subject to the UL 325 safety standard — a well-known industry requirement that Ion expressly discloses mandates the use and verification of a photo eye sensor before each closing cycle (Ion [0045]–[0051]). Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kincaid's UWB system, which cannot detect persons, animals, or objects lacking active UWB transmitters, and Ion's photo eye system, which detects any physical object in the door's travel path regardless of whether it carries electronics, serve categorically distinct and complementary functions whose combination represents the predictable integration of two well-known, non-overlapping technologies with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, Kincaid in view of Ion discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 1, wherein the processor causes the movable barrier operator to stop a current movable barrier operator system operation when the processor determines that a travel of the movable barrier exceeds a limit position based on the determined status of the movable barrier (Although, Kincaid teaches a movable barrier operator system that uses UWB ranging to determine the status of the barrier and to control opening and closing ([0010], [0019], [0058], [0062]). Kincaid further discloses determining barrier position (open, closed, intermediate) via UWB location and controlling state changes accordingly ([0014]–[0016], [0056], [0060]). Ion discloses garage/door control systems with controllers that monitor barrier travel and stop motion when a travel limit is reached (Ion [0037]–[0038], [0042]–[0051]). Specifically, Ion [0037]–[0038] discloses that activation of the stop button causes a control signal to be sent to drive 120 which interrupts the current operation and results in motor 102 stopping and the door remaining at its present height at the time of the stop command. Therefore, the motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 1. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate limit-stop functionality as taught by Ion into the UWB-based control system as taught by Kincaid to ensure safe operation, prevent mechanical damage, and comply with known safety standards. Since Kincaid already determines barrier status (e.g., position and motion state) and Ion teaches using limit positions to stop operations, combining the two constitutes the predictable use of a well-known safety control technique in the same field of motorized barriers.).
Regarding claim 6, Kincaid in view of Ion discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: deduce an actual moving speed of the movable barrier as the movable barrier moves; and adjust an operating speed of the movable barrier operator when the deduced actual moving speed is outside of a preconfigured range (Kincaid teaches using UWB ranging to determine barrier state, location, and motion ([0007], [0016], [0051]). This allows deduction of barrier motion characteristics, including speed, based on successive UWB distance/location measurements. Kincaid further discloses controlling barrier operations based on UWB-derived position and movement data ([0014]–[0016], [0056], [0060]). Ion discloses a door control system where the controller regulates the speed of a DC motor by adjusting duty cycle or armature voltage (Ion [0022], [0040]–[0041]). Ion further discloses that an encoder provides reliable position and speed feedback data to controller 310 via a communication bus (Ion [0034]), and that sensors and control logic are used to monitor door travel and position and adjust operation accordingly (Ion [0042], [0044]). Thus, Ion teaches both deducing barrier speed via encoder speed feedback and motor cycles and adjusting operating speed when outside of desired limits. Therefore, the motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 1. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the speed-regulation logic taught by Ion into the system taught by Kincaid to ensure that the operator can both monitor barrier movement via UWB (Kincaid) and correct deviations in travel speed via motor control (Ion). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that motor-speed feedback taught by Ion could be substituted or augmented with UWB-derived speed information taught by Kincaid to achieve the same recognized function of ensuring speed remains within safe or expected limits.).
Regarding claim 7, Kincaid in view of Ion discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 1,wherein the processor is further configured to cause performance of a movable barrier operator system operation in response to the received ultra-wideband radio signals, the movable barrier operator system operation including one or more of a state change operation, an anti-entrapment operation, and/or a proximity-based operation of the movable barrier operator system (Kincaid [0010], [0019]: the system determines how long to retain open a barrier based on UWB-determined device location; Kincaid [0058]: the UWB device is used in conjunction with bay doors and garage doors to open and/or close doors automatically when an authorized device is detected; Kincaid [0062]: an auto-operator keeps the barrier open until a user has passed through, then closes the barrier immediately after passage) and/or a proximity-based operation of the movable barrier operator system (Kincaid [0007], [0016]: UWB ranging (time-of-flight, angle of arrival) determines whether the second computing device is within a predetermined distance or direction relative to the barrier; Kincaid [0014]–[0016]: the first computing device determines whether the location of the second computing device indicates an intent to access the passageway; Kincaid [0056]: enhanced zone control where barrier transitions between locked/unlocked depending on whether a user's UWB tag is within a threshold distance/region). However, Kincaid does not expressly disclose an anti-entrapment operation. Ion teaches anti-entrapment safety features in door control systems, including photo-eye sensors configured to detect the presence of an object in the path of the door and causing the controller to stop or reverse the closing operation when such an object is detected (Ion [0026], [0042]–[0044]). Ion further describes compliance with UL 325 safety standards, requiring verification of such safety sensors before a close cycle (Ion [0045]–[0051]). Therefore, the motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 1. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the anti-entrapment logic taught by Ion into the system taught by Kincaid to provide compliance with established safety standards and to prevent injury or damage. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adding Ion's anti-entrapment operation to Kincaid's UWB-based system would ensure compliance with safety regulations and improve user safety without undue experimentation, representing the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device.).
Regarding claim 10, Kincaid in view of Ion disclose the method of claim 3, further comprising: comparing the determined distance to a predetermined distance (Kincaid [0056]: discloses a movable barrier operator system that employs UWB for “enhanced zone control,” wherein UWB devices/tags are detected and the system unlocks a door “when the person comes within a certain range (e.g., a predefined range) of the door”); and performing the anti-entrapment operation when the determined distance is less than the predetermined distance, the anti-entrapment operation comprising stopping and/or reversing an in-process movable barrier operator system operation (Ion [0026]–[0029], [0043]–[0049]: discloses that garage door operators incorporate safety mechanisms, including photo eye sensors, to detect obstructions and prevent entrapment. Specifically, Ion teaches that when an object is detected in the travel path, the controller “prevents door 106 from being lowered” or reverses movement.). The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, Kincaid in view of Ion disclose the method of claim 3, wherein determining the distance and determining the identity are performed in parallel (Kincaid [0004], [0007], [0016], [0021]–[0023], [0051]: discloses UWB ranging (time-of-flight, angle of arrival) used to determine distance between a UWB-enabled device and the access-control device; [0008], [0017], [0035], [0059]: disclose receiving BLE-based virtual credentials and authenticating the identity of the mobile/UWB device; While Kincaid clearly teaches both distance determination and identity determination, it does not explicitly disclose that these processes are executed in parallel. Ion [0026], [0042]–[0044]: teaches that door operator systems use controllers that process sensor data (e.g., photo-eye sensor, tilt sensor) and operational commands concurrently to improve safety and reduce latency in door actuation; [0045]–[0051]: further teaches the importance of real-time responsiveness to avoid accidents, noting UL 325 compliance requirements for verifying safety sensors before and during door operations.). The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, Kincaid in view of Ion disclose the method of claim 3, wherein determining the distance between the source and the specific location is performed using the detected ultra-wideband signal (Kincaid [0004], [0006]–[0007], [0015]–[0016], [0021]–[0023], [0051]: teaches UWB ranging (time-of-flight and AoA) to determine a device’s location/distance relative to the access device), and wherein determining the identity of the source of the ultra-wideband signal is performed using a Bluetooth signal received from the source (Kincaid [0008], [0017], [0035], [0059]: teaches receiving access credentials over Bluetooth/BLE from the mobile device and using that credential to authenticate/identify the user/device). The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, Kincaid in view of Ion disclose the method of claim 3, wherein performing the movable barrier operator system operation is further based on a current state of a movable barrier of the movable barrier system, the current state of the movable barrier determined based on an ultra-wideband radio signal received from an ultra-wideband device positioned on the movable barrier (Kincaid [0060] teaches that a UWB device mounted on a door (e.g., electronic lock) may determine whether the door is open or closed, using UWB in conjunction with sensor data, in order to provide accurate meaning to UWB AoA calculations. This discloses determining the state (open/closed position) of the barrier itself via a UWB device associated with the barrier; Kincaid does not explicitly link that state determination to conditioning the barrier operation (e.g., performing operations based on the detected state). Ion [0026], [0042]–[0044]: teaches that door control systems monitor the current state of the door using sensors, and use that state to condition subsequent operations (e.g., photo-eye sensors prevent closing if an obstruction is detected; tilt sensors prevent movement if misalignment is detected); Ion [0045]-[0051] further emphasizes UL 325 requirements for verifying sensor states before and during door actuation to avoid unsafe operation.). The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, Kincaid in view of Ion disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the movable barrier operating system comprises a movable barrier operator configured to communicate a credential to a user device (Kincaid [0008], [0017], [0059]: discloses BLE communication between access control device and user device, including the exchange of access credentials), and wherein performing the proximity-based operation (Kincaid [0010], [0019], [0056], [0058]: discloses barrier operations (unlock, open/close, auto-operator) performed when location and credential conditions are satisfied. The operations are inherently “proximity-based,” since they trigger when the authorized device is within a certain range) comprises: receiving a command from the user device based upon a user input, the command further including the credential; and performing the proximity-based operation in response to the received command including the credential (Kincaid [0008], [0017], [0035]: describes that a credential may be stored on a mobile device as a virtual credential, and transmitted (e.g., via BLE) to the access control device; Kincaid [0008], [0017]: again confirm BLE credential transfer; While Kincaid teaches credential transfer, it does not explicitly tie it to a user-initiated command input (e.g., button press, app instruction); Ion [0033], [0036]-[0038] teaches user-initiated input commands that drive barrier operations.). The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, Kincaid movable barrier operating system comprising:
a movable barrier operator configured to open and close a movable barrier (Kincaid [0010], [0019], [0056], [0058], [0062]: discloses UWB devices in conjunction with barrier operators such as bay doors and garage doors, automatically opening/closing when an authorized device is detected);
at least one ultra-wideband device associated with the movable barrier operator and electrically configured to receive an ultra-wideband radio frequency signal (Kincaid [0004], [0007], [0016], [0021]–[0023], [0051]: describes UWB devices with antennas and communication circuitry configured to send/receive UWB signals and determine relative location of peer devices.); and
a processor operatively connected to the at least one ultra-wideband device and configured to perform a method (Kincaid [0021], [0023], [0042]–[0047]: discloses computing devices (processors, memory, I/O, operating logic) operatively connected to UWB devices to execute positioning and access control logic), the method comprising:
determining a distance between a source of the received ultra-wideband radio frequency signal and a specific location (Kincaid [0004], [0007], [0016], [0021]–[0023], [0051]: teaches distance determination using UWB ranging (time-of-flight, angle of arrival));
determining an identity of the source of the detected ultra-wideband signal (Kincaid [0008], [0017], [0035], [0059]: teaches receiving access credentials from a user device via BLE and authenticating the identity associated with the UWB signal.); and
performing a movable barrier operator system operation based on the distance and the identity of the source (Kincaid [0010], [0019], [0035], [0056], [0058], [0062]: discloses operations such as opening/closing or auto-operator functions based on both location and authorization.), the movable barrier operator system including one or more of a state change operation (Kincaid [0010], [0019]: the system determines how long to retain open a barrier based on UWB-determined device location; Kincaid [0058]: the UWB device is used in conjunction with bay doors and garage doors to open and/or close doors automatically when an authorized device is detected; Kincaid [0062]: an auto-operator keeps the barrier open until a user has passed through, then closes the barrier immediately after passage) and/or a proximity-based operation of the movable barrier operator system ([0007], [0016]: UWB ranging (time-of-flight, angle of arrival) determines whether the second computing device is within a predetermined distance or direction relative to the barrier; [0014]–[0015]: the first computing device determines whether the location of the second computing device indicates an intent to access the passageway; [0056]: enhanced zone control: barrier transitions between locked/unlocked depending on whether a user’s UWB tag is within a threshold distance/region).
However, Kincaid does not expressly disclose “an anti-entrapment operation”. Ion teaches anti-entrapment safety features in door control systems, including photo-eye sensors configured to detect the presence of an object in the path of the door and causing the controller to stop or reverse the closing operation when such an object is detected ([0026], [0042]–[0044]). Ion further describes compliance with UL 325 safety standards, requiring verification of such safety sensors before a close cycle ([0045]–[0051]). Furthermore, the claim additionally recites photo eye configured to detect an object in a path of the movable barrier: Kincaid does not expressly disclose a photo eye system configured to detect an object in the path of the movable barrier. While Kincaid [0040] broadly lists optical sensors, motion sensors, and cameras among the sensor types that may be associated with its UWB devices, these sensors are expressly described as being configured to detect "characteristics of the physical environment of the UWB device 102" for purposes of access control and UWB positioning — they are not positioned across the movable barrier's travel path to detect arbitrary physical obstructions during a closing cycle, and Kincaid discloses no sensor verification protocol of the type required for UL 325 compliance. Accordingly, Kincaid's broad sensor disclosure does not teach a photo eye system configured to detect an object in the path of the movable barrier. Ion expressly discloses this limitation. Ion [0026] discloses that sensor 112 is a photo eye sensor configured to detect the presence of an object in close proximity, and that if a person or another object is located in the path of door 106, sensor 112 detects the presence of this object and prevents door 106 from being lowered. Ion [0042]–[0043] further discloses that sensor 112 is affixed to railing 110 normally within a metre or less from the ground, physically positioned to detect any object in the travel path of the door during a closing cycle regardless of whether that object carries any electronic device. Accordingly, Ion teaches a photo eye configured to detect an object in the path of the movable barrier.
Therefore, the motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 1. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ion's photo eye anti-entrapment system into Kincaid's UWB-based movable barrier operator system. Kincaid explicitly contemplates deployment of its UWB-based system in conjunction with garage doors ([0058]), which are subject to the UL 325 safety standard — a well-known industry requirement that Ion expressly discloses mandates the use and verification of a photo eye sensor before each closing cycle (Ion [0045]–[0051]). Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kincaid's UWB system, which cannot detect persons, animals, or objects lacking active UWB transmitters, and Ion's photo eye system, which detects any physical object in the door's travel path regardless of whether it carries electronics, serve categorically distinct and complementary functions whose combination represents the predictable integration of two well-known, non-overlapping technologies with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 16, Kincaid in view of Ion discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises: comparing the determined distance to a predetermined distance (Kincaid [0007], [0016]:teaches determining whether a second device is within a particular distance or region relative to the barrier using UWB time-of-flight ranging; Kincaid [0056]: discloses “enhanced zone control” where barrier operation (unlock/lock, access restriction) depends on whether a user device is within a predefined range.); and performing the anti-entrapment operation when the determined distance is less than the predetermined distance (Ion [0026], [0042]–[0044]: teaches anti-entrapment features such as photo-eye sensors that detect when an object is within the barrier path, and stopping or reversing the barrier if the object is within that range.), the anti-entrapment operation comprising stopping and/or reversing an in-process movable barrier operator system operation (Ion [0042]–[0044]: expressly discloses that the controller stops or reverses the barrier when a photo-eye sensor detects an obstruction, preventing entrapment; Ion [0045]–[0051]: emphasizes UL 325 compliance, requiring verification of such safety actions before and during closing cycles.). The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Kincaid in view of Ion discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 15, wherein the processor is configured to determine the distance and determine the identity of the source in series (Kincaid [0004], [0007], [0008], [0016]–[0017], [0059]: describes a process where BLE communication is first established and credentials exchanged, which then awakens the UWB circuitry from a low power state, after which UWB ranging is performed. This sequence inherently discloses serial determination: first identity (via BLE credential/handshake), then distance (via UWB ranging)). The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, Kincaid in view of Ion discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 15, wherein the processor is configured to communicate a credential to a user device (Kincaid [0008], [0017], [0035], [0059]: discloses BLE communication between the barrier operator (access control device) and the user device, including transmission/receipt of credentials.), and wherein performing the proximity-based operation comprises: receiving a command from the user device based upon a user input, the command further including the credential (Kincaid [0008], [0017], [0035], [0059]: discloses credential exchange, but does not expressly tie it to a user-initiated command input. Ion [0033], [0036]–[0038] teaches user-operable inputs (e.g., open, close, stop buttons) on the control panel. These passages show controllers receiving commands based on user input, which are transmitted to the motor/controller for barrier operation.); and performing the proximity-based operation in response to the received command including the credential (Kincaid [0010], [0019], [0056], [0058], [0062]: discloses performing proximity/state-change operations when the UWB/BLE conditions (distance and credential) are satisfied. When combined with Ion, these operations are conditioned on both receipt of a credential and user command input). The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, Kincaid in view of Ion discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 15, wherein determining the distance between the source and the specific location is performed using the detected ultra-wideband radio frequency signal (Kincaid [0007], [0016], [0051]: discloses determining distance based on time-of-flight of a UWB signal between devices, and angle of arrival measurements across antennas.), and wherein determining the identity of the source of the ultra-wideband radio frequency signal is performed using a Bluetooth signal received from the source (Kincaid [0008], [0017], [0059]: teaches BLE communication between the access control device and the user device, including receipt of access credentials over BLE; Kincaid [0035]: describes that a credential may be a virtual credential stored/transmitted via BLE on the user’s mobile device). The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, Kincaid in view of Ion discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 15, wherein performing the movable barrier operator system operation is further based on a current state of a movable barrier of the movable barrier system, the current state of the movable barrier determined based on an ultra-wideband radio signal received from an ultra-wideband device positioned on the movable barrier (Kincaid [0060] teaches that a UWB device mounted on a door (e.g., electronic lock) may determine whether the door is open or closed, using UWB in conjunction with sensor data, in order to provide accurate meaning to UWB AoA calculations. This discloses determining the state (open/closed position) of the barrier itself via a UWB device associated with the barrier; Kincaid does not explicitly link that state determination to conditioning the barrier operation (e.g., performing operations based on the detected state). Ion [0026], [0042]–[0044]: teaches that door control systems monitor the current state of the door using sensors, and use that state to condition subsequent operations (e.g., photo-eye sensors prevent closing if an obstruction is detected; tilt sensors prevent movement if misalignment is detected); Ion [0045]-[0051] further emphasizes UL 325 requirements for verifying sensor states before and during door actuation to avoid unsafe operation.). The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 15.
Claim(s) 4, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincaid et al. (US 20210158637 A1) in view of Ion (US 20200141172 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Brown et al. (US 20230010267 A).
Regarding claim 4, Kincaid in view of Ion disclose the movable barrier operating system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the received ultra-wideband radio frequency signals are received from an ultra-wideband device positioned on the movable barrier. Although, Kincaid describes UWB-enabled barrier operator systems for doors and gates ([0010], [0019], [0058], [0062]) and [0033], [0039], [0060] teach UWB device architecture and placement near barriers but does not explicitly place the UWB device on the barrier itself.
Nonetheless, in analogous art, Brown teaches discloses UWB accessory devices and UWB-enabled mobile devices cooperating with an electronic lock/barrier system ([0003], [0033]–[0034], [0044]–[0046]). Brown teaches that a UWB accessory may be stationary and co-located in the same geometric plane as the access control device, but also contemplates UWB functionality being integrated into or positioned on the door/barrier itself ([0044]-[0046], [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Brown’s (as modified by Ion) teaching of positioning the UWB device on the movable barrier into the system of Kincaid, in order to improve the accuracy and responsiveness of barrier status determination and user-intent detection. Such modification represents the predictable use of a known placement alternative to enhance performance in UWB-based barrier control systems.
Regarding claim 8, Kincaid in view of Ion disclose the movable barrier operating system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine an identity associated with the at least one ultra-wideband device based on the received ultra-wideband radio signal (Kincaid [0007], [0016], [0038], [0051]: discloses a movable barrier operator system with UWB ranging to determine distance/location of a portable device relative to a passageway; [0008], [0017], [0035] further teaches that the barrier operator may include Bluetooth communication to identify or authenticate the portable device prior to permitting operations), and wherein the processor is configured to trigger a state change operation of the movable barrier operator based on the determined identity (Kincaid [0010], [0019]: determining how long to retain the barrier open based on device location; [0058], [0062]: UWB devices in conjunction with doors/garage doors automatically open/close based on authorized device presence.).
However, Kincaid in view of Ion does not expressly disclose "the state change operation being different for at least two different ultra-wideband devices of the at least one ultra-wideband device."
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Brown teaches tailoring the type of operation (e.g., full unlock vs. multi-factor verification, automatic opening vs. limited access) depending on the credential/identity of the mobile device ([0063]–[0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Brown’s (as modified by Ion) teaching of differentiating operations based on device identity into Kincaid’s UWB-based system. Doing so would predictably enhance security and flexibility: one UWB-enabled device could trigger a full open, while another device could trigger only partial access or a stop command. This represents a routine improvement in access-control logic, consistent with industry motivation to tailor operations to user roles and privileges.
Regarding claim 9, Kincaid in view Ion and Brown disclose the movable barrier operating system of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose wherein each of the at least two different ultra-wideband devices has a different preconfigured range for which the processor triggers the state change operation (Kincaid [0056]: teaches a movable barrier operator system with UWB ranging that determines the distance between a portable device and a reference location - This supports the concept of using preconfigured ranges for control; [0056] further discloses that operations (e.g., opening, closing, stopping) can be triggered based on the determined proximity of the device - This teaches triggering a state change operation once the range condition is satisfied. Brown [0063]-[0071] discloses tailoring operations based on the identity/credential of a mobile device - This supports the notion that different devices may have different operational parameters. In the context of Kincaid, those parameters would reasonably include different range thresholds assigned to different devices.). The motivation to combine Kincaid in view Ion and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to Claim 8.
Response to Arguments
I. Response to Arguments Regarding Claims 1 and 2 — 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
Applicant's argument that Kincaid does not disclose a photo eye system configured to detect an object in the path of the movable barrier has been found persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of Claims 1 and 2 has been withdrawn. However, the amendment to Claim 1 necessitates a new ground of rejection. Claims 1 and 2 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kincaid in view of Ion as set forth above. The addition of the photo eye limitation by amendment does not overcome the prior art of record, as Ion expressly teaches a photo eye system configured to detect an object in the path of a movable barrier, and the motivation to incorporate Ion's photo eye system into Kincaid's UWB-based system is well established as set forth in the rejection above.
II. Response to Arguments Regarding Claims 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10–20 — 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection (Kincaid in view of Ion)
Applicant argues that incorporating Ion's photo eye system into Kincaid's UWB-based system would be redundant because Kincaid's UWB devices already provide the safety functionality addressed by Ion's photo eye, and that therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to combine the two references. This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant's redundancy argument rests on a fundamental mischaracterization of what Kincaid's UWB system actually teaches. Kincaid's UWB system is designed exclusively to detect and locate authorized, UWB-transmitting devices for identity-based access control purposes. As confirmed by a full reading of Kincaid, the system operates only with devices that actively transmit UWB signals — the access control device determines location based on "at least one UWB communication signal received from the second computing device." Kincaid [0004], [0013]. Kincaid's system has no mechanism to detect persons, animals, or objects that do not carry active UWB transmitters. Ion's photo eye system, by contrast, detects any physical object placed in the door's travel path regardless of whether that object carries any electronic device. Ion [0026], [0042]–[0043]. These two technologies address categorically different problems using different mechanisms — one providing intelligent, identity-based access control, the other providing passive, object-agnostic entrapment prevention during closing cycles. There is no functional overlap and therefore no redundancy.
Furthermore, applicant's argument fails entirely to address the regulatory motivation set forth in the rejection. Ion [0045]–[0051] discloses that the UL 325 standard is a well-known industry safety standard mandating the use and verification of a photo eye sensor before each closing cycle. Kincaid explicitly contemplates deployment of its UWB-based system in conjunction with garage doors — precisely the application context for which UL 325 compliance is required. Kincaid [0058]. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to commercialize a UWB-based garage door operator of the type disclosed in Kincaid would have been legally and commercially required to incorporate a UL 325-compliant photo eye system of the type taught by Ion. This regulatory motivation is independently sufficient to support the combination and is entirely free of hindsight. Applicant has not addressed this rationale and has therefore not overcome this basis for the rejection.
Accordingly, the § 103 rejections of Claims 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10–20 are maintained.
III. Response to Arguments Regarding Claims 4, 8, and 9 — 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection (Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown)
Applicant argues that Claims 4, 8, and 9 are allowable because they depend from independent claims that are argued to be allowable. As set forth above, the independent claims from which Claims 4, 8, and 9 depend remain rejected. Applicant has presented no independent argument traversing the specific rationale applied to Claims 4, 8, and 9, and those rejections therefore stand on their merits as set forth above. Accordingly, the § 103 rejections of Claims 4, 8, and 9 are maintained.
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 RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685