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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 5, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites "an anti-entrapment operation" twice. The claim first recites "monitoring a travel path of the movable barrier with a photo eye system, wherein the movable barrier operator is configured to perform an anti-entrapment operation in response to a detected object in the travel path," and subsequently recites "performing an anti-entrapment operation based on the distance and the identity of the source." Because both recitations employ the indefinite article "an," it is unclear whether these refer to the same anti-entrapment operation performed in response to different inputs, or to two separate and distinct anti-entrapment operations. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the two recitations as referring to a single anti-entrapment operation, consistent with Applicant's specification at paragraph [0033], which states that the anti-entrapment operation "can replace and/or supplement functionality of the photo eye system 120." Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite by virtue of their dependency from claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites "the ultra-wideband signal." Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites "ultra-wideband radio frequency signals" and "the ultra-wideband radio signals," but does not recite "the ultra-wideband signal" in the singular. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites "based on the determined status of the movable barrier." Claim 1, as amended, no longer recites determining a status of the movable barrier; the limitation was amended to recite determining "at least one of a real-time position or a real-time speed of the movable barrier." There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the determined status of the movable barrier" in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 3, the claim recites "performing the anti-entrapment operation when the determined distance is less than the predetermined distance." Because claim 3 recites "an anti-entrapment operation" twice as set forth above, it is unclear which anti-entrapment operation is referenced. The claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites "wherein performing the movable barrier operator system operation is further based on a current state of a movable barrier." Claim 3, as amended, no longer recites performing a movable barrier operator system operation; that limitation was replaced with "performing an anti-entrapment operation based on the distance and the identity of the source." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites "wherein performing the proximity-based operation comprises." Claim 3, as amended, no longer recites a proximity-based operation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites "a photo eye configured to cause performance of an anti-entrapment operation upon detecting an object in a path of the movable barrier" and subsequently recites "performing an anti-entrapment operation based on the distance and the identity of the source." For the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3, it is unclear whether these recitations refer to the same anti-entrapment operation or to two distinct operations. The claim is therefore indefinite. Claim 15 is further indefinite because it recites "determining an identity of the source of the detected ultra-wideband signal." The body of claim 15 recites "an ultra-wideband radio frequency signal" and "the received ultra-wideband radio frequency signal," but does not recite a detected ultra-wideband signal. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear whether "the detected ultra-wideband signal" is intended to refer to the previously recited ultra-wideband radio frequency signal or to a separate signal.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite by virtue of their dependency from claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 15, the claim recites "performing the anti-entrapment operation when the determined distance is less than the predetermined distance." Because claim 15 recites "an anti-entrapment operation" twice as set forth above, it is unclear which anti-entrapment operation is referenced. The claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites "wherein performing the proximity-based operation comprises." Claim 15, as amended, no longer recites a proximity-based operation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites "wherein performing the movable barrier operator system operation is further based on a current state of a movable barrier." Claim 15, as amended, no longer recites performing a movable barrier operator system operation; that limitation was replaced with "performing an anti-entrapment operation based on the distance and the identity of the source." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites "wherein the movable barrier operator is configured to use the ultra-wideband signal to determine at least one of a real-time position or a real-time speed of the movable barrier." Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, already recites "a processor operatively connected to the at least one ultra-wideband device and configured to use the ultra-wideband radio signals to determine at least one of a real-time position or a real-time speed of the movable barrier." As the processor is a component of the movable barrier operator, claim 4 recites subject matter coextensive with that already required by claim 1 and therefore fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 3, 4, 5, and 10-20 are examined as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above. The recitations of "an anti-entrapment operation" in claims 3 and 15 are interpreted as referring to a single anti-entrapment operation; "the determined status of the movable barrier" in claim 5 is interpreted as the real-time position recited in claim 1; and "the movable barrier operator system operation" in claims 13 and 20 and "the proximity-based operation" in claims 14 and 18 are interpreted as the anti-entrapment operation recited in claims 3 and 15 respectively. The remaining claims are indefinite by virtue of their dependency and require no separate construction.
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, 2, 4-9, and 15-20 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), further in view of Brown et al. (US 20230010267 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kincaid discloses a movable barrier operating system comprising:
a movable barrier operator configured to open and close a movable barrier (Kincaid [0034]: teaches auto-operators, barrier control devices, and peripheral controllers of a barrier to a passageway, i.e., operators that actuate doors/barriers; Kincaid [0058]: the UWB device is used in conjunction with bay doors and garage doors to open and/or close doors automatically; Kincaid [0062]: an auto-operator keeps the barrier open until a user has passed through, then closes the barrier after passage);
an ultra-wideband device configured to be positioned on the movable barrier (Kincaid [0060]: discloses that "if the UWB device 102 is an electronic lock mounted to a door, the UWB device 102 may determine whether the door is open or closed in order to provide accurate meaning to angle of arrival calculations of the UWB device 102." An electronic lock mounted to a door is a UWB device positioned on the movable barrier. Kincaid [0038] further discloses that where the antenna system 110 is associated with an access control device, "the antenna system 110 may be positioned on either side of a corresponding door/barrier, within the door/barrier, or within the frame/trim for the door/barrier," expressly contemplating placement of the UWB antenna system on and within the barrier itself);
at least one ultra-wideband device associated with the movable barrier operator and electrically configured to receive ultra-wideband radio frequency signals from the ultra-wideband device when the ultra-wideband device is positioned on the movable barrier (Kincaid [0032]–[0033]: discloses UWB devices 102 and 104 each having an antenna system and communication circuitry configured to communicate with one another via UWB-based communication; Kincaid [0036]: discloses that UWB device 102 may be the initiator and UWB device 104 the responder for UWB-based communication, or vice versa, establishing bidirectional UWB communication between the two devices; Kincaid [0039]: the communication circuitry 112 is configured to use the antenna system 110 to communicate with other devices via UWB-based communication; Kincaid [0004], [0013]: the first computing device associated with the access control device determines a location based on at least one UWB communication signal received from the second computing device. Read in combination with Kincaid [0060] and [0038] above, Kincaid teaches a UWB device associated with the operator that receives UWB signals from a UWB device positioned on the barrier); and
a processor operatively connected to the at least one ultra-wideband device and configured to use the ultra-wideband radio signals to determine at least one of a real-time position or a real-time speed of the movable barrier (Kincaid [0042]–[0048]: discloses computing devices including a processing device 202 and memory 206 executing operating logic 208; Kincaid [0060]: discloses that the UWB device mounted to the door uses UWB to determine "whether the door is open or closed" and to determine "the relative angle of the electronic lock relative to a reference position (e.g., closed)," and further discloses that "the UWB device 102 may be positioned on the door frame such that UWB can be leveraged to determine the door position." Kincaid therefore expressly teaches using UWB signals to determine the real-time position of the movable barrier itself, not merely the location of a user device; Kincaid [0051]: discloses that UWB relies on time of flight calculations of a signal to determine an accurate distance "to within 10 cm," providing the positional resolution necessary for real-time barrier position determination; Kincaid [0010], [0019]: discloses using UWB-derived location to control barrier state, including determining "a duration of time for which the access control device is to retain open a barrier…based on the location").
However, 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 a photo eye system configured to detect an object in the path of a movable barrier. Ion [0026], [0042] 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 the movable barrier.
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 Ion's photo eye 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]). 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.
To the extent Applicant contends that Kincaid does not sufficiently teach an ultra-wideband device positioned on the movable barrier, Brown teaches this limitation. Brown discloses UWB accessory devices and UWB-enabled mobile devices cooperating with an electronic lock/barrier system (Brown [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, and further contemplates UWB functionality being integrated into or positioned on the door/barrier itself (Brown [0044]–[0046], [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Brown's teaching of positioning a UWB device on the movable barrier into the system of Kincaid as modified by Ion. Kincaid already teaches mounting a UWB-enabled electronic lock to the door and using UWB to determine door position ([0060]), and further teaches positioning the antenna system on either side of, or within, the door/barrier ([0038]). Brown's teaching of UWB functionality integrated into or positioned on the barrier represents the predictable use of a known placement alternative, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adopt such placement in order to improve the accuracy and responsiveness of barrier position determination, consistent with Kincaid's own stated purpose at [0060] of providing "accurate meaning to angle of arrival calculations."
Regarding claim 2, Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 1, wherein the processor uses the ultra-wideband radio signals to diagnose mechanical problems associated with the movable barrier operating system (Kincaid teaches using UWB radio signals to determine the position and relative angle of the movable barrier itself (Kincaid [0060]: a UWB device mounted to a door determines whether the door is open or closed and determines "the relative angle of the electronic lock relative to a reference position (e.g., closed)"; Kincaid [0051]: UWB time of flight ranging determines distance "to within 10 cm"). Kincaid does not expressly disclose using that data to diagnose mechanical problems. Ion teaches this limitation. Ion [0028] discloses tilt sensor 124 detecting changes in door orientation to determine "if door 106 is misaligned," expressly noting that "[s]uch misalignment may be indicative of damage to the door (e.g. if a vehicle has driven into and dented door 106)," and that the resulting output is used "to prevent movement of door 106 if the output indicates that door 106 is misaligned." Ion [0046]–[0049] further discloses a diagnostic routine verifying sensor operational status, withholding motor actuation upon detecting a malfunction, and alerting the user. The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1. It would have been further obvious to apply Ion's diagnostic logic to Kincaid's UWB-derived barrier position and angle data, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kincaid's positional data could be substituted for or augment Ion's tilt sensor data to achieve the same recognized function of identifying a mechanically compromised barrier and preventing unsafe operation. This constitutes the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device.).
Regarding claim 4, Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 1, wherein the movable barrier operator is configured to use the ultra-wideband signal to determine at least one of a real-time position or a real-time speed of the movable barrier (Kincaid teaches determining the real-time position of the movable barrier using UWB signals. Kincaid [0060] discloses that where the UWB device 102 is an electronic lock mounted to a door, the device "may determine whether the door is open or closed," may "determine the relative angle of the electronic lock relative to a reference position (e.g., closed)," and that "the UWB device 102 may be positioned on the door frame such that UWB can be leveraged to determine the door position." Kincaid [0051] discloses that UWB relies on time of flight calculations to determine an accurate distance "to within 10 cm," providing the resolution necessary for real-time position determination. Kincaid [0042]–[0047] discloses that the UWB device includes a processing device 202 executing operating logic 208, such that the determination is performed by the operator's processing circuitry. To the extent Applicant contends Kincaid does not teach a real-time speed determination, Ion teaches this limitation. Ion [0034] discloses "an encoder which provides reliable position and speed feedback data to the controller 310." Ion [0040]–[0041] discloses that the speed at which door 106 is opened or closed may be increased or decreased by modifying the duty cycle, and that motor speed may also be adjusted by adjusting armature voltage or field current. The claim requires only "at least one of" a real-time position or a real-time speed, and Kincaid's position determination independently satisfies the limitation. The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 4 is examined as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) above; the mapping applied to the corresponding limitation of claim 1 applies equally here.).
Regarding claim 5, Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown 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 (Kincaid teaches determining barrier position via UWB signals (Kincaid [0060]: a UWB device mounted to a door determines whether the door is open or closed and determines "the relative angle of the electronic lock relative to a reference position (e.g., closed)"; Kincaid [0051]: UWB time of flight ranging determines distance "to within 10 cm"). Kincaid does not expressly disclose stopping a current operation when barrier travel exceeds a limit position. Ion teaches this limitation. Ion [0037] discloses moving door 106 for a predetermined number of cycles corresponding to "a pre-configured change in vertical position for the door 106," such that motion terminates upon reaching that position. Ion [0038] discloses that a stop command "interrupts the current operation and results in motor 102 stopping and the door 106 remaining at its present height." Ion [0028] further discloses that tilt sensor output "may be used by control panel 114 to prevent movement of door 106 if the output indicates that door 106 is misaligned." The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1. It would have been further obvious to apply Ion's limit-stop control logic to Kincaid's UWB-derived barrier position data, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kincaid's position data could be substituted for or augment Ion's cycle-count position feedback to achieve the same recognized function of terminating barrier travel at a defined limit, ensuring safe operation and preventing mechanical damage. This constitutes the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device.).
Regarding claim 6, Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown 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 determining barrier position via UWB signals with resolution sufficient to deduce barrier motion (Kincaid [0060]: a UWB device mounted to a door determines the door position and "the relative angle of the electronic lock relative to a reference position (e.g., closed)"; Kincaid [0051]: UWB time of flight ranging determines distance "to within 10 cm," from which successive position measurements yield speed). Kincaid does not expressly disclose adjusting operating speed when the deduced speed falls outside a preconfigured range. Ion teaches this limitation. Ion [0034] discloses "an encoder which provides reliable position and speed feedback data to the controller 310." Ion [0040] discloses that "the speed at which the door 106 is opened or closed may be increased or decreased by modifying the duty cycle," and Ion [0041] discloses that motor speed "may also be adjusted by adjusting the armature voltage or current flux." The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1. It would have been further obvious to apply Ion's speed feedback and regulation logic to Kincaid's UWB-derived barrier position data, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kincaid's centimeter-accurate positional data could be substituted for or augment Ion's encoder feedback to achieve the same recognized function of maintaining barrier speed within expected limits. This constitutes the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device.).
Regarding claim 7, Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown 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 (The claim requires only "one or more of" the recited operations. Kincaid teaches a state change operation (Kincaid [0010], [0019]: determining "a duration of time for which the access control device is to retain open a barrier that secures the passageway based on the location of the second computing device"; Kincaid [0058]: UWB devices open and/or close bay doors and garage doors "automatically and in a seamless manner based on the location of an authorized user") and a proximity-based operation (Kincaid [0007], [0016]: determining distance based on time of flight of the UWB communication signal; Kincaid [0056]: a door lock "may unlock when the person comes within a certain range (e.g., a predefined range) of the door and the person is authorized to access the room"). To the extent Applicant contends an anti-entrapment operation is additionally required, Ion teaches sensor 112 detecting an object in the path of door 106 and preventing door 106 from being lowered (Ion [0026]), and controller 310 interrupting a 'close' operation if an object is detected (Ion [0043]). The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1.).
Regarding claim 8, Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown discloses 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, and wherein the processor is configured to trigger a state change operation of the movable barrier operator based on the determined identity, the state change operation being different for at least two different ultra-wideband devices of the at least one ultra-wideband device (Kincaid teaches determining identity from UWB signals and triggering a state change based on that identity (Kincaid [0061]: "an identification may be transferred via UWB," and UWB tracking generates "a unique signature associated with that person's movement" that is "subsequently used to identify that person"; Kincaid [0058]: UWB devices open and/or close bay doors and garage doors "based on the location of an authorized user"). Kincaid does not expressly disclose that the state change operation differs for at least two different ultra-wideband devices. Brown teaches this limitation, disclosing that the operation performed is tailored to the credential and identity of the particular device, including whether a full unlock is granted or multi-factor verification is instead required (Brown [0063]–[0071]). The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1. It would have been further obvious to incorporate Brown's identity-differentiated operation logic into Kincaid as modified by Ion, as Kincaid already conditions barrier operation on device identity and authorization, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that differentiating the resulting operation by device identity predictably enhances security and flexibility. This constitutes the predictable use of a known technique in access control logic to improve a similar device.).
Regarding claim 9, Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 8, 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 teaches triggering a state change operation once a device is within a preconfigured range (Kincaid [0056]: a door lock "may unlock when the person comes within a certain range (e.g., a predefined range) of the door and the person is authorized to access the room"; Kincaid [0052]: an access control device "may remain in a locked state" as long as tagged users are "within a certain region relative to the access control device (e.g., within a threshold distance, within a threshold angle, on a particular side, and/or otherwise)," and transitions state when a device "comes within the region"). Kincaid does not expressly disclose that the preconfigured range differs as between two different ultra-wideband devices. Brown teaches tailoring the operation performed to the credential and identity of the particular device (Brown [0063]–[0071]), thereby teaching that different devices may be assigned different operational parameters. The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 8. It would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assign different preconfigured ranges to different ultra-wideband devices in the system of Kincaid as modified by Brown. Kincaid already conditions the state change on a threshold distance ([0052], [0056]) and Brown teaches differentiating system behavior by device identity ([0063]–[0071]); applying that differentiation to the threshold distance parameter constitutes the predictable use of a known technique to achieve the expected result of tailoring barrier response to user role and privilege level.).
Regarding claim 15, Kincaid discloses a movable barrier operating system comprising:
a movable barrier operator configured to open and close a movable barrier (Kincaid [0034]: teaches auto-operators, barrier control devices, and peripheral controllers of a barrier to a passageway; Kincaid [0058]: the UWB device is used in conjunction with bay doors and garage doors "to open and/or close bay doors automatically and in a seamless manner based on the location of an authorized user"; Kincaid [0062]: an auto-operator closes "the barrier only after and/or immediately after the person has safely passed through the passageway");
an ultra-wideband device configured to be positioned on the movable barrier (Kincaid [0060]: where the UWB device 102 "is an electronic lock mounted to a door, the UWB device 102 may determine whether the door is open or closed," and "the UWB device 102 may be positioned on the door frame such that UWB can be leveraged to determine the door position"; Kincaid [0038]: the antenna system "may be positioned on either side of a corresponding door/barrier, within the door/barrier, or within the frame/trim for the door/barrier");
at least one ultra-wideband device associated with the movable barrier operator and electrically configured to receive an ultra-wideband radio frequency signal from the ultra-wideband device on the movable barrier (Kincaid [0032]–[0033]: UWB devices 102 and 104 each have an antenna system and communication circuitry configured to communicate with one another via UWB-based communication; Kincaid [0036]: UWB device 102 may be the initiator and UWB device 104 the responder for UWB-based communication, or vice versa, establishing bidirectional UWB communication; Kincaid [0004], [0013]: the first computing device determines a location based on at least one UWB communication signal received from the second computing device); and
a processor operatively connected to the at least one ultra-wideband device and configured to perform a method (Kincaid [0042]–[0047]: discloses computing devices including processing device 202 and memory 206 having stored thereon operating logic 208 for execution by the processing device), the method comprising:
determining a distance between a source of the received ultra-wideband radio frequency signal and a specific location (Kincaid [0007], [0016]: determining "a distance of the second computing device relative to the first computing device based on a time of flight of the at least one UWB communication signal from the second computing device to a plurality of antennas of the first computing device"; Kincaid [0051]: UWB time of flight ranging determines distance "to within 10 cm");
determining an identity of the source of the detected ultra-wideband signal (Kincaid [0008], [0017]: receiving access credentials from the second computing device with respect to access to the access control device; Kincaid [0035]: a credential may be "a Bluetooth transmitted credential stored on the mobile device"; Kincaid [0061]: "an identification may be transferred via UWB"); and
performing an anti-entrapment operation based on the distance and the identity of the source (Kincaid teaches performing a barrier operation that prevents the barrier from closing on an identified, tracked person based on that person's UWB-determined location. Kincaid [0062] discloses that "an auto-operator may leverage UWB tags/badges in order to determine the amount of time to keep a barrier open," and that "rather than having a timed opening, the auto-operator may track the location of the person passing through the corresponding barrier and close the barrier only after and/or immediately after the person has safely passed through the passageway," expressly "In doing so, the auto-operator may ensure regulatory compliance." The operation is based on distance, as the barrier state is conditioned on the tracked location of the person relative to the passageway, and on identity, as the tracked person is identified by a UWB tag or badge. Kincaid [0056] further discloses that a UWB tag "generates an alert when that person enters (or approaches) an area that the person is unauthorized to access," including "restricted areas due to safety concerns.").
However, Kincaid does not expressly disclose a photo eye configured to cause performance of an anti-entrapment operation upon detecting an object in a path of the movable barrier. While Kincaid [0040] broadly lists optical sensors, motion sensors, and cameras among the sensor types associated with its UWB devices, these sensors are expressly described as detecting "characteristics of the physical environment of the UWB device 102" for purposes of access control and UWB positioning; they are not positioned across the barrier's travel path to detect physical obstructions during a closing cycle.
Ion teaches this limitation. Ion [0026], [0042] 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, the sensor 112 detects the presence of this object and prevents door 106 from being lowered." Ion [0043] discloses that sensor 112 is placed "in a location that allows sensor 112 to detect objects which are in the path of door 106," and that upon such detection "controller 310 may interrupt a 'close' operation." Ion [0044] further discloses that controller 310 may illuminate lights or sound an audio alert to indicate that an object is blocking the door path.
To the extent Applicant contends that Kincaid's UWB-based operation does not constitute an anti-entrapment operation, Ion teaches an anti-entrapment operation comprising halting a closing barrier and activating a notification apparatus upon detection of an object in the barrier's path (Ion [0026], [0043]–[0044]), performed in the combined system in response to the distance and identity determinations of Kincaid.
The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1. 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 Ion's photo eye into Kincaid's UWB-based movable barrier operator system. Kincaid contemplates deployment of its system in conjunction with garage doors ([0058]), which are subject to the UL 325 safety standard that Ion expressly discloses mandates the use and verification of a photo eye sensor before each closing cycle (Ion [0045]–[0051]). Kincaid is further expressly concerned with regulatory compliance in barrier operation ([0062]) and with alerting persons in unsafe areas ([0056]), such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ion's photo eye to achieve the safety and compliance objectives Kincaid itself identifies.
To the extent Applicant contends that Kincaid does not sufficiently teach an ultra-wideband device positioned on the movable barrier, Brown teaches this limitation. Brown discloses UWB accessory devices and UWB-enabled mobile devices cooperating with an electronic lock/barrier system (Brown [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, and further contemplates UWB functionality being integrated into or positioned on the door/barrier itself (Brown [0044]–[0046], [0063]).
The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1. It would have been further obvious to incorporate Brown's teaching of positioning a UWB device on the movable barrier. Kincaid already teaches mounting a UWB-enabled electronic lock to the door and using UWB to determine door position ([0060]), and Brown's teaching of UWB functionality integrated into or positioned on the barrier (Brown [0044]–[0046], [0063]) represents the predictable use of a known placement alternative, adopted to improve the accuracy of barrier position determination consistent with Kincaid's stated purpose at [0060].
Regarding claim 16, Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises: comparing the determined distance to a predetermined distance; 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 (Kincaid teaches comparing a UWB-determined distance to a predetermined distance (Kincaid [0056]: a door lock "may unlock when the person comes within a certain range (e.g., a predefined range) of the door"; Kincaid [0052]: state transitions depend on whether a UWB tag is "within a threshold distance"). Kincaid does not expressly disclose stopping and/or reversing an in-process operation upon satisfying the distance condition. Ion teaches this limitation. Ion [0026] discloses that when an object is in the path of door 106, sensor 112 "detects the presence of this object and prevents door 106 from being lowered." Ion [0043] discloses that upon such detection, "controller 310 may interrupt a 'close' operation." The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 15. It would have been further obvious to condition Ion's stop-or-reverse response on Kincaid's UWB distance comparison, as Kincaid already triggers barrier operations upon a device crossing a threshold distance and Ion teaches halting a closing operation when an obstruction is within the barrier's path. This constitutes the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device.).
Regarding claim 17, Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown 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 teaches determining identity and distance sequentially. Kincaid [0004] discloses communicating with the second computing device over a Bluetooth communication connection "to determine that the second computing device includes ultra-wideband (UWB) communication circuitry for UWB-based communication," then "waking the UWB communication circuitry of the second computing device from a low power state in response to the Bluetooth communication," and then "determining, by the first computing device based on at least one UWB communication signal received from the second computing device, a location of the second computing device relative to the first computing device." Kincaid [0008] and [0017] disclose that the Bluetooth communication further includes "receiving access credentials from the second computing device with respect to access to the access control device." Kincaid [0059] confirms this sequence, disclosing that UWB device 102 "may utilize BLE, for example, as a first order communication technology (e.g., to determine that the device 102 is within proximity of another UWB-enabled device) before awaking the UWB circuitry from a low power state," and that "the BLE technology may also be used to transmit access credentials such that the UWB technology is limited to location tracking." Kincaid therefore discloses a sequence in which the identity is determined first via BLE credential exchange, after which the UWB circuitry is awakened and the distance is determined via UWB ranging — that is, the two determinations are performed in series. The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 15.).
Regarding claim 18, Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown discloses the movable barrier operating system of claim 15, wherein the processor is configured to communicate a credential to a user device, 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; and performing the proximity-based operation in response to the received command including the credential (Kincaid teaches credential communication between the barrier operator and the user device (Kincaid [0008], [0017]: communication over the Bluetooth connection further includes "receiving access credentials from the second computing device"; Kincaid [0035]: a credential may be "a Bluetooth transmitted credential stored on the mobile device"), and performing a proximity-based operation upon satisfaction of the location and credential conditions (Kincaid [0056]: a door lock "may unlock when the person comes within a certain range (e.g., a predefined range) of the door and the person is authorized to access the room"). Kincaid does not expressly disclose that the operation is performed in response to a command based upon a user input. Ion teaches this limitation, disclosing that controller 310 "is operable to receive commands from buttons 304, 306, 308 and send instructions to one or more of display 302 and drive 120" (Ion [0033]). The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 15. It would have been further obvious to condition Kincaid's credential-based proximity operation on a user-initiated command as taught by Ion, as Kincaid already performs barrier operations upon verifying credential and proximity, and Ion teaches that barrier operations are initiated by user input. This constitutes the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device.).
Regarding claim 19, Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown 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, 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 teaches determining the distance using the UWB signal (Kincaid [0007], [0016]: determining "a distance of the second computing device relative to the first computing device based on a time of flight of the at least one UWB communication signal from the second computing device to a plurality of antennas of the first computing device"; Kincaid [0051]: UWB relies on time of flight calculations to determine an accurate distance "to within 10 cm"). Kincaid further teaches determining the identity using a Bluetooth signal received from the source (Kincaid [0008], [0017]: communication over the Bluetooth connection "further include[s] receiving access credentials from the second computing device with respect to access to the access control device"; Kincaid [0035]: a credential may be "a Bluetooth transmitted credential stored on the mobile device"; Kincaid [0059]: "the BLE technology may also be used to transmit access credentials such that the UWB technology is limited to location tracking"). The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 15.).
Regarding claim 20, Kincaid in view of Ion and Brown 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 the ultra-wideband device positioned on the movable barrier (Kincaid teaches determining the barrier's current state using a UWB signal from a UWB device positioned on the barrier (Kincaid [0060]: where the UWB device 102 "is an electronic lock mounted to a door, the UWB device 102 may determine whether the door is open or closed," and may determine "the relative angle of the electronic lock relative to a reference position (e.g., closed)"; Kincaid [0038]: the antenna system "may be positioned on either side of a corresponding door/barrier, within the door/barrier, or within the frame/trim for the door/barrier"). Kincaid does not expressly disclose conditioning performance of the barrier operation on that determined state. Ion teaches this limitation. Ion [0028] discloses that tilt sensor output indicating the door's orientation "may be used by control panel 114 to prevent movement of door 106 if the output indicates that door 106 is misaligned." The motivation to combine Kincaid, Ion, and Brown is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 15. It would have been further obvious to condition barrier operation on Kincaid's UWB-derived barrier state, as Kincaid already determines the barrier's position from an on-barrier UWB device and Ion teaches that a controller uses the barrier's detected state to govern whether the barrier is subsequently moved. This constitutes the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device.).
Claim(s) 3, 10-14 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 3, Kincaid discloses a method of operating a movable barrier operating system, the method comprising:
moving, by a movable barrier operator, a movable barrier from an open position to a closed position (Kincaid [0034]: teaches auto-operators, barrier control devices, and peripheral controllers of a barrier to a passageway; 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 closes "the barrier only after and/or immediately after the person has safely passed through the passageway");
detecting an ultra-wideband signal (Kincaid [0004], [0013]: the first computing device associated with the access control device determines a location based on at least one UWB communication signal received from the second computing device; Kincaid [0039]: communication circuitry 112 uses antenna system 110 to communicate with other devices via UWB-based communication);
determining a distance between a source of the detected ultra-wideband signal and a specific location (Kincaid [0007], [0016], [0023]: determining a distance of the second computing device relative to the first computing device based on time of flight of the UWB communication signal to a plurality of antennas; Kincaid [0051]: UWB relies on time of flight calculations to determine an accurate distance "to within 10 cm");
determining an identity of the source of the detected ultra-wideband signal (Kincaid [0008], [0017]: receiving access credentials from the second computing device with respect to access to the access control device; Kincaid [0035]: a credential may be embodied as a virtual credential stored on the mobile device; Kincaid [0059]: BLE is used to transmit access credentials such that UWB technology is limited to location tracking); and
performing an anti-entrapment operation based on the distance and the identity of the source (Kincaid teaches performing a barrier operation that prevents the barrier from closing on an identified, tracked person based on that person's UWB-determined location. Kincaid [0062] discloses that "an auto-operator may leverage UWB tags/badges in order to determine the amount of time to keep a barrier open," and that "rather than having a timed opening, the auto-operator may track the location of the person passing through the corresponding barrier and close the barrier only after and/or immediately after the person has safely passed through the passageway," expressly "In doing so, the auto-operator may ensure regulatory compliance (e.g., ADA compliance)." The operation is based on distance, as the barrier state is conditioned on the tracked location of the person relative to the passageway, and on identity, as the tracked person is identified by a UWB tag or badge. Kincaid [0056] further discloses that a UWB tag "generates an alert when that person enters (or approaches) an area that the person is unauthorized to access," including "restricted areas due to safety concerns," and that "the person may be alerted even if authorized in order to ensure the person is optimally aware of his/her surroundings in the unsafe area." To the extent Applicant contends that Kincaid's UWB-based operation does not constitute an anti-entrapment operation, Ion teaches an anti-entrapment operation comprising stopping or reversing a closing barrier and activating a notification apparatus upon detection of an object in the barrier's path (Ion [0026], [0043]–[0044]), which is performed in the combined system in response to the distance and identity determinations of Kincaid.).
Kincaid does not expressly disclose monitoring a travel path of the movable barrier with a photo eye system, wherein the movable barrier operator is configured to perform an anti-entrapment operation in response to a detected object in the travel path. While Kincaid [0040] broadly lists optical sensors, motion sensors, and cameras among the sensor types associated with its UWB devices, these sensors are expressly described as detecting "characteristics of the physical environment of the UWB device 102" for purposes of access control and UWB positioning; they are not positioned across the barrier's travel path to detect physical obstructions during a closing cycle.
Ion teaches this limitation. Ion [0026], [0042] 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, the sensor 112 detects the presence of this object and prevents door 106 from being lowered." Ion [0043] discloses that sensor 112 is placed "in a location that allows sensor 112 to detect objects which are in the path of door 106," and that when an object is detected, "controller 310 may interrupt a 'close' operation." Ion [0044] further discloses that controller 310 may illuminate lights or sound an audio alert to indicate that an object is blocking the door path.
The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 1. 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 Ion's photo eye monitoring and anti-entrapment logic into Kincaid's UWB-based movable barrier operator system. Kincaid contemplates deployment of its system in conjunction with garage doors ([0058]), which are subject to the UL 325 safety standard that Ion expressly discloses mandates the use and verification of a photo eye sensor before each closing cycle (Ion [0045]–[0051]). Kincaid is further expressly concerned with regulatory compliance in barrier operation ([0062]) and with alerting persons in unsafe areas ([0056]), such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ion's photo eye monitoring to achieve the safety and compliance objectives Kincaid itself identifies. The combination constitutes the predictable use of known safety techniques in the field of motorized barrier operators, yielding no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, Kincaid in view of Ion discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising: comparing the determined distance to a predetermined distance; 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 (Kincaid teaches comparing a UWB-determined distance to a predetermined distance (Kincaid [0056]: a door lock "may unlock when the person comes within a certain range (e.g., a predefined range) of the door"; Kincaid [0052]: state transitions depend on whether a UWB tag is "within a threshold distance"), and conditioning an in-process barrier operation on the tracked location of an identified person (Kincaid [0062]: the auto-operator "may track the location of the person passing through the corresponding barrier and close the barrier only after and/or immediately after the person has safely passed through the passageway"). Kincaid does not expressly disclose stopping and/or reversing an in-process operation upon satisfying the distance condition. Ion teaches this limitation. Ion [0026] discloses that when an object is in the path of door 106, sensor 112 "detects the presence of this object and prevents door 106 from being lowered." Ion [0043] discloses that upon such detection, "controller 310 may interrupt a 'close' operation." The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 3. It would have been further obvious to condition Ion's stop-or-reverse response on Kincaid's UWB distance comparison, as Kincaid already triggers barrier operations upon a device crossing a threshold distance and Ion teaches halting a closing operation when an obstruction is within the barrier's path. This constitutes the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device.).
Regarding claim 11, Kincaid in view of Ion discloses the method of claim 3, wherein determining the distance and determining the identity are performed in parallel (Kincaid teaches determining distance and identity from a single UWB communication exchange. Kincaid [0023] discloses that to determine whether a location indicates an intent to access the passageway, the first computing device is caused "to determine an angle of arrival of the at least one UWB communication signal at a plurality of antennas of the first computing device, and determine a distance of the second computing device relative to the first computing device based on a time of flight of the at least one UWB communication signal." Kincaid [0061] discloses that "an identification may be transferred via UWB," and that UWB may be leveraged to "generate a unique signature associated with that person's movement" which is "subsequently used to identify that person based on the person's unique movement signature." Because the identifying movement signature is derived from the same ongoing UWB location tracking that yields the distance determination, Kincaid teaches that the two determinations proceed concurrently from a common signal stream rather than sequentially. Kincaid further teaches processing circuitry capable of concurrent execution. Kincaid [0047] discloses that "Processing devices 202 with multiple processing units may utilize distributed, pipelined, and/or parallel processing in various embodiments." 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 discloses the method of claim 3, wherein determining the distance between the source and the specific location is performed using the detected ultra-wideband signal, and wherein determining the identity of the source of the ultra-wideband signal is performed using a Bluetooth signal received from the source (Kincaid teaches determining the distance using the detected UWB signal (Kincaid [0007], [0016]: determining "a distance of the second computing device relative to the first computing device based on a time of flight of the at least one UWB communication signal from the second computing device to a plurality of antennas of the first computing device"; Kincaid [0051]: UWB relies on time of flight calculations to determine an accurate distance "to within 10 cm"). Kincaid further teaches determining the identity using a Bluetooth signal received from the source (Kincaid [0008], [0017]: communicating with the second computing device over the Bluetooth communication connection "further include[s] receiving access credentials from the second computing device with respect to access to the access control device"; Kincaid [0035]: a credential may be embodied as a virtual credential, "e.g., a Bluetooth transmitted credential stored on the mobile device"; Kincaid [0059]: "the BLE technology may also be used to transmit access credentials such that the UWB technology is limited to location tracking"). 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 discloses 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 teaches determining the barrier's current state using a UWB signal from a UWB device positioned on the barrier (Kincaid [0060]: where the UWB device 102 "is an electronic lock mounted to a door, the UWB device 102 may determine whether the door is open or closed," and may determine "the relative angle of the electronic lock relative to a reference position (e.g., closed)"; Kincaid [0038]: the antenna system "may be positioned on either side of a corresponding door/barrier, within the door/barrier, or within the frame/trim for the door/barrier"). Kincaid does not expressly disclose conditioning performance of the barrier operation on that determined state. Ion teaches this limitation. Ion [0028] discloses that tilt sensor output indicating the door's orientation "may be used by control panel 114 to prevent movement of door 106 if the output indicates that door 106 is misaligned." The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 3. It would have been further obvious to condition barrier operation on Kincaid's UWB-derived barrier state, as Kincaid already determines the barrier's position from an on-barrier UWB device and Ion teaches that a controller uses the barrier's detected state to govern whether the barrier is subsequently moved. This constitutes the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device.).
Regarding claim 14, Kincaid in view of Ion discloses 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, 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; and performing the proximity-based operation in response to the received command including the credential (Kincaid teaches credential communication between the barrier operator and the user device (Kincaid [0008], [0017]: communication over the Bluetooth connection "further include[s] receiving access credentials from the second computing device with respect to access to the access control device"; Kincaid [0035]: a credential may be "a Bluetooth transmitted credential stored on the mobile device"), and performing a proximity-based operation upon satisfaction of the location and credential conditions (Kincaid [0056]: a door lock "may unlock when the person comes within a certain range (e.g., a predefined range) of the door and the person is authorized to access the room"). Kincaid does not expressly disclose that the operation is performed in response to a command based upon a user input. Ion teaches this limitation. Ion [0033] discloses that controller 310 "is operable to receive commands from buttons 304, 306, 308 and send instructions to one or more of display 302 and drive 120." Ion [0024] further discloses that control panel 114 "may include a transceiver which is configured to communicate with remote control 118," which "may be used by a user to control door 106 when located remote from buttons 304, 306, 308." The motivation to combine Kincaid and Ion is the same as set forth above with respect to claim 3. It would have been further obvious to condition Kincaid's credential-based proximity operation on a user-initiated command as taught by Ion, as Kincaid already performs barrier operations upon verifying credential and proximity, and Ion teaches that barrier operations are initiated by user input from a control panel or remote device. This constitutes the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument I. Applicant argues that reliance on Brown is improper because Brown is "exclusively concerned with access control, not with monitoring the intrinsic operational status of the barrier mechanism itself," and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not repurpose Brown's on-door UWB anchor "as a high-fidelity sensor for monitoring the barrier's own speed and position." Applicant's Remarks, at pages 9–11.
This argument is directed to a rejection that is no longer the basis of record. As set forth above, Kincaid teaches both an ultra-wideband device positioned on the movable barrier and the use of ultra-wideband signals to determine that barrier's position. Kincaid [0060] discloses that "if the UWB device 102 is an electronic lock mounted to a door, the UWB device 102 may determine whether the door is open or closed," that the device may "determine the relative angle of the electronic lock relative to a reference position (e.g., closed)," and that the device "may be positioned on the door frame such that UWB can be leveraged to determine the door position." Kincaid [0038] further discloses that the antenna system "may be positioned on either side of a corresponding door/barrier, within the door/barrier, or within the frame/trim for the door/barrier." Kincaid [0051] discloses UWB ranging accurate "to within 10 cm."
Applicant's premise — that the prior art teaches only user ranging for access control and not determination of the barrier's own position — is therefore contradicted by the primary reference. Brown is cited above as cumulative evidence of a known placement alternative and is not relied upon to supply either the on-barrier device or the barrier position determination. Because Kincaid independently teaches both, Applicant's arguments directed to Brown, including the assertion of impermissible hindsight under In re Hedges, do not reach the basis of the rejection.
To the extent Applicant argues that Brown's purpose differs from Applicant's purpose, the reason to modify a reference need not be the same as Applicant's reason. MPEP 2144(IV).
Argument II. Applicant argues that claims 3 and 15 recite "two distinct and complementary anti-entrapment operations running concurrently," and that Kincaid and Ion would yield "a system with exactly one anti-entrapment method." Applicant's Remarks, at pages 11–13. This is not persuasive for two independent reasons.
A. The argument is not commensurate with the claims. Claim 3 recites that the operator "is configured to perform an anti-entrapment operation" in response to a photo-eye detection, and separately recites "performing an anti-entrapment operation based on the distance and the identity of the source." Claim 15 recites parallel language. Both recitations use the indefinite article "an," and neither claim positively recites that the operations are distinct, concurrent, or separately implemented. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, nothing precludes a single operation responsive to either input. Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the claims. MPEP 2145(VI). This ambiguity is the subject of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; amendment positively reciting two distinct operations is required if that scope is intended. Applicant's specification further undercuts the construction, stating at [0033] that the ultra-wideband anti-entrapment operation "can replace and/or supplement functionality of the photo eye system 120."
B. The prior art teaches the claimed subject matter under either construction. Applicant asserts Kincaid uses UWB "exclusively for access control." Kincaid [0062] discloses that "an auto-operator may leverage UWB tags/badges in order to determine the amount of time to keep a barrier open," and that the auto-operator "may track the location of the person passing through the corresponding barrier and close the barrier only after and/or immediately after the person has safely passed through the passageway," for the express purpose of "regulatory compliance." Holding a barrier open while a tracked, identified person occupies the passageway is an anti-entrapment operation performed based on distance (tracked location) and identity (UWB tag or badge). Kincaid [0056] further discloses UWB-triggered alerts for persons in areas presenting "safety concerns," and Applicant's specification at [0035] identifies activation of a notification apparatus as an anti-entrapment operation. Accordingly, even under Applicant's construction, Ion supplies the photo-eye-triggered operation and Kincaid [0062] and [0056] supply the UWB distance-and-identity-based operation.
Argument III. Applicant argues what Brown alone and Kincaid alone fail to teach. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP 2145(IV).
Applicant asserts that the Examiner relied on Kincaid's "rate of approach" disclosure at [0059] to establish that speed calculation would be obvious. Applicant's Remarks, at page 11. This mischaracterizes the record; the rejection of claim 6 relies on Kincaid [0051] and [0060] for barrier position data and Ion [0034], [0040]–[0041] for speed feedback and regulation.
Applicant has not addressed the regulatory motivation maintained above. Ion [0045]–[0051] discloses that UL 325 requires the use and verification of a photo eye sensor before each closing cycle, and Kincaid [0058] contemplates deployment in conjunction with garage doors. Kincaid is independently concerned with regulatory compliance ([0062]) and with alerting persons in unsafe areas ([0056]). This motivation arises from the references themselves and is free of hindsight.
Argument IV. Regarding claims 4, 8, and 9, Applicant argues these claims are allowable solely because they depend from independent claims argued to be allowable. Applicant's Remarks, at page 14. The independent claims remain rejected, and no independent argument traversing the rationale applied to claims 4, 8, and 9 has been presented.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights