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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 7/2/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding rejection §112
Applicant Argues
The rejection under §112 “appears to be premised on the breadth of the claims, not indefiniteness.”
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under §112(b) set forth in the previous office action is withdrawn.
Regarding rejections prior art rejections
Applicant Argues
Hulse fails to anticipate claim 1. Hulse in view of Menkveld fails to render obvious claims 11 and 16.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under §102 and the rejections of claims 11 and 16 under §103 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejections is made and is outlined below.
Accordingly, this Office action is non-final.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites that the processor is configured to “receive a first communication from the remote server” however “the remote server” lacks antecedent basis. Amending the claim to recite “receive a first communication from a remote server” will overcome this objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites “a window acknowledgement”, however the claim depends on claim 11 which has already introduced a window acknowledgement. Thus, the claim is unclear and therefore indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., is “a window acknowledgement” of claim 14 referring to the window acknowledgement of claim 11 or is this a different/second window acknowledgement?).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GIRON (US20230014636A1).
Regarding claim 11, GIRON teaches a server [Fig. 2 remote server 220] configured to communicate with a barrier operator [Fig. 2 garage door operator (GDO) 212; [0015]GDO 212 may be remotely operated/controlled via remote server], wherein the server is configured to:
transmit a first communication to the barrier operator [[0034] advertisement message/signal transmitted to GDO];
receive a window acknowledgement from the barrier operator [[0034] after advertisement message/signal is transmitted to GDO, determine whether a GDO signal is subsequently received], the window acknowledgement indicating the barrier operator has initiated a window of time [[0017] “the established communication path is available for a few seconds to perform the opening and closing of the garage door 106, then the secure connection may be closed” emphasis added by examiner, the GDO signal indicating that the GDO 212 has started an available communication window of a few seconds only]; and
in response to receipt of the window acknowledgement, transmit a barrier open request to the barrier operator [[0034] “the receipt of the GDO signal by the vehicle transmitter 704 establishes an authenticated communication channel between the vehicle transmitter 704 and the GDO 702. At step 712, the vehicle transmitter 704 may send a message request for the GDO 702 to open the garage door 106”].
GIRON [0021] “the user device endpoints 406, 408 may facilitate operation and/or monitoring of the garage door operator such as via communicating with a remote server associated with a user account” (emphasis added by examiner). The interaction between the remote server 220 and the GDO 212 is identical with the interaction between the vehicle transmitter 704 and the GDO 702. The claimed first communication and the window acknowledgement are signals used to establish communication between the remote server and the GDO. The barrier open request is sent from the remote server to the GDO to initiate the position change/actuation of the garage door. GIRON [0037] “the establishment of an authenticated bi-directional communication along with the user pressing the button and/or providing the user input to the vehicle transmitter 804 for the second time, the GDO 802 may initiate the actuation of the garage door 106.”
Regarding claim 12, GIRON teaches the server of claim 11 as outlined above. GIRON teaches the server is configured to transmit the first communication to the barrier operator in response to receipt of the barrier open request from a partner platform [[0021] user device endpoints 406].
Regarding claim 13, GIRON teaches the server of claim 12 as outlined above. GIRON teaches to initiate a timer in response to transmitting the first communication [[0037] subsequent to receipt of the GDO signal a bi-direction communication path is established [0017] “established communication path is available for a few seconds to perform opening and closing of the garage door 106, then the secure connection may be closed”]; and in response to expiration of the timer, reject the barrier open request received from the partner platform [[0037] “establishment of an authenticated bi-directional communication along with the user pressing the button and/or providing the user input to the vehicle transmitter 804 for the second time, the GDO 802 may initiate the actuation of the garage door 106” [0017] the established communication path is available for a few second only to perform opening of garage door before the secure connection may be closed such that an actuation request received after the secure connection is closed is not implemented (i.e., ignored/rejected)].
Regarding claim 14, GIRON teaches the server of claim 13 as outlined above. GIRON teaches to terminate the timer in response to receipt of a window acknowledgement from the barrier operator indicating the barrier operator is able to initiate the window of time [[0037] when the GDO signal is received within the period of time, the remote server does not have to wait any time and terminate the timer].
Regarding claim 15, GIRON teaches the server of claim 12 as outlined above. GIRON teaches to receive a close acknowledgement from the barrier operator indicating the barrier operator has closed a barrier; and transmit a close confirmation to the partner platform [[0021] “the user device endpoints 406, 408 may facilitate operation and/or monitoring of the garage door operator such as via communicating with a remote server associated with a user account … the user device first endpoint 406 and/or the user device second endpoint 408 may each include a user device having an application installed and configured to remotely transmit control signals, status requests”].
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENKVELD (US20160148451A1) in view of GIRON (US20230014636A1) (hereinafter – “MENKVELD-GIRON”).
Regarding claim 1, MENKVELD teaches a barrier operator for manipulating a barrier [Fig. 2 garage door controlling system 200, see [0024]], the barrier operator comprising:
a motor operable to move the barrier between a closed position and an open position [[0024] garage door controlling system includes an opener 201 for controlling garage door position, Fig. 3 301, 309 open/closed positions];
a barrier control module [Fig. 2 command device 203, [0017] command device is in communication with cloud server and “it is the device that directly interfaces with the movable barrier control/drive unit”; [0020] command device integrates with any garage door opener] including
one or more processors configured to [[0016] one or more processors configured to execute stored program instructions to implement control of garage door or other moveable barrier]:
receive a barrier open request [[0025] “the user requests the garage door to be opened/closed on a mobile enabled device […] If the garage door needs to be moved, the server sends a request to the command device 203 to simulate a physical button press]; and
in response to receipt of the barrier open request
initiate a timer; and
in response to expiration of the timer, close the barrier [[0023] “the command device may act as a pass-through to allow Cloud services to operate other peripherals that relate directly to the movable barrier […] Additionally, the Cloud services may also operate the movable barrier in an automatic fashion based upon previously defined business logic. For example, such logic may include but is not limited to a) closing the movable barrier after it has been open a defined amount of time”, implicit to ‘closing the barrier after it has been opened a defined amount of time’ is starting a timer when it is opened such that after the defined amount of time has elapsed, i.e. after a timer has expired, the barrier can be closed).
In summary, MENKVELD teaches to control the position of a garage door using a user interface that communicates a garage door position change/actuation request with a server, and the server is configured operate the garage door, based upon defined rules/logic, via communication with and through a command device that is integrated with the garage door opener to effect position change/actuation requests. MENKVELD also teaches to initiate a timer when the garage door is opened such that the garage door is closed after the timer expires, as outlined above. MENKVELD is not relied on for receiving a first communication from a remote server and initiating a window of time in response to the receipt of the first communication.
However, GIRON in an analogous art teaches to receive a first communication from a remote server at a barrier operator to establish secure communications [Fig. 2 garage door operator (GDO) 212; [0015]GDO 212 may be remotely operated/controlled via remote server, [0034] advertisement message/signal transmitted to GDO) and determine whether GDO signal is subsequently received], and to initiate a window of time in response to receipt of the first communication such that an open request requested after the window of time is not implemented [[0017] “Once a secure connection is established … the established communication path is available for a few seconds to perform the opening and closing of the garage door 106, then the secure connection may be closed” emphasis added by examiner, the GDO signal indicating that the GDO 212 has started an available communication window of a few seconds only].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GIRON to the teachings of MENKVELD according to known methods such that MENKVELD’s garage door operator would have been configured to receive a first communication from the remote server, the first communication being an advertisement message/signal used to establish a secure communication path between the remote server and the garage door opener, such that response open request could be received during a window of time, in which the secure communication path is established, to yield the predictable result of opening the garage door for an authorized user and preventing an unauthorized person for gaining access to the area protected by the garage door.
Regarding claim 2, MENKVELD-GIRON teaches the barrier operator of claim 1 as outlined above. GIRON teaches in response to receipt of the barrier open request after the window of time has elapsed, reject the barrier open request [[0017] “Once a secure connection is established … the established communication path is available for a few seconds to perform the opening and closing of the garage door 106, then the secure connection may be closed” emphasis added by examiner, the GDO 212 has started an available communication window of a few seconds only such that a request to effect a position change of the garage door, such as closing, would not be effected].
Regarding claims 4 and 5, MENKVELD-GIRON teaches the barrier operator of claim 1 as outlined above. MENKVELD teaches using a wireless local transmitter to transmit barrier open requests to the barrier operator [Fig. 2 205].
Regarding claim 6, MENKVELD-GIRON teaches the barrier operator of claim 1 as outlined above. GIRON teaches that barrier operator/garage door opener comprising a controller and a wireless transmitter [[0015] Fig. 2 GDO 212 comprises control circuit 202 to control operations of GDO motor and communication circuitry 221 to communicate wirelessly); GIRON also teaches garage door openers are mounted to ceilings [Fig. 1 122]. MENKVELD teaches that the barrier control module/command device can integrate with any garage door opener [0020] thus implying that retro fitting existing barrier operators is an expected use of the command device; and teaches the command device being external and communicatively coupled to the barrier operator [Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 7, MENKVELD-GIRON teaches the barrier operator of claim 1 as outlined above. GIRON teaches to transmit a window acknowledgement to the remote server [[0034] after advertisement message/signal is transmitted to GDO, determine whether a GDO signal is subsequently received] in response to determining the barrier operator is able to initiate the window of time [[0017] “the established communication path is available for a few seconds to perform the opening and closing of the garage door 106, then the secure connection may be closed” emphasis added by examiner, the GDO signal indicating that the GDO 212 has started an available communication window of a few seconds only; [0034] “receipt of the GDO signal by the vehicle transmitter 704 establishes an authenticated communication channel between the vehicle transmitter 704 and the GDO 702” such that GDO 702 may subsequently initiate the opening of garage door].
Regarding claim 8, MENKVELD-GIRON teaches the barrier operator of claim 1 as outlined above. MENKVELD teaches to transmit an open command acknowledgement in response to receipt of the barrier open request [Fig. 4 401, Fig. 7 [0033] “communication triggers and/or activates the door to move 737 and a confirmation response is sent back to Cloud services 739”].
Regarding claim 9, MENKVELD-GIRON teaches the barrier operator of claim 1 as outlined above. MENKVELD teaches to transmit an open command acknowledgement in response to determining the barrier operator is able to execute the barrier open request [Fig. 4 401, Fig. 7 [0033] “communication triggers and/or activates the door to move 737 and a confirmation response is sent back to Cloud services 739”, emphasis added by examiner, Fig. 7 737 occurs prior to 739 implying the message may not be sent if the barrier operator is unable to move the barrier ].
Regarding claim 10, MENKVELD-GIRON teaches the barrier operator of claim 1 as outlined above. MENKVELD also teaches to transmit a close acknowledgement to the remote server in conjunction with the closing of the barrier [Fig. 4 403, Fig. 7 [0033] “communication triggers and/or activates the door to move 737 and a confirmation response is sent back to Cloud services 739”].
Regarding claim 16, MENKVELD teaches a barrier operator system [[0001] control system for opening and closing a garage door using the internet], comprising:
a remote server [Fig. 1 server 105]; and
a barrier operator configured to move a barrier [Fig. 2 opener 201];
wherein the barrier operator is configured to:
receive the first communication from the remote server;
receive a barrier open request [[0025] “the user requests the garage door to be opened/closed on a mobile enabled device […] If the garage door needs to be moved, the server sends a request to the command device 203 to simulate a physical button press]; and
in response to receipt of the barrier open request
initiate a timer; and
in response to expiration of the timer, close the barrier [[0023] “the command device may act as a pass-through to allow Cloud services to operate other peripherals that relate directly to the movable barrier […] Additionally, the Cloud services may also operate the movable barrier in an automatic fashion based upon previously defined business logic. For example, such logic may include but is not limited to a) closing the movable barrier after it has been open a defined amount of time”, implicit to ‘closing the barrier after it has been opened a defined amount of time’ is starting a timer when it is opened such that after the defined amount of time has elapsed, i.e. after a timer has expired, the barrier can be closed).
In summary, MENKVELD teaches to control the position of a garage door using a user interface that communicates a garage door position change/actuation request with a server, and the server is configured operate the garage door, based upon defined rules/logic, via communication with and through a command device that is integrated with the garage door opener to effect position change/actuation requests. MENKVELD also teaches to initiate a timer when the garage door is opened such that the garage door is closed after the timer expires, as outlined above. MENKVELD is not relied on for receiving a first communication from a remote server and initiating a window of time in response to the receipt of the first communication.
GIRON in an analogous art teaches a server [Fig. 2 remote server 220] configured to communicate with a barrier operator [Fig. 2 garage door operator (GDO) 212; [0015]GDO 212 may be remotely operated/controlled via remote server], wherein the server is configured to:
transmit a first communication to the barrier operator [[0034] advertisement message/signal transmitted to GDO];
receive a window acknowledgement from the barrier operator [[0034] after advertisement message/signal is transmitted to GDO, determine whether a GDO signal is subsequently received], the window acknowledgement indicating the barrier operator has initiated a window of time [[0017] “the established communication path is available for a few seconds to perform the opening and closing of the garage door 106, then the secure connection may be closed” emphasis added by examiner, the GDO signal indicating that the GDO 212 has started an available communication window of a few seconds only]; and
in response to receipt of the window acknowledgement, transmit a barrier open request to the barrier operator [[0034] “the receipt of the GDO signal by the vehicle transmitter 704 establishes an authenticated communication channel between the vehicle transmitter 704 and the GDO 702. At step 712, the vehicle transmitter 704 may send a message request for the GDO 702 to open the garage door 106”].
GIRON [0021] “the user device endpoints 406, 408 may facilitate operation and/or monitoring of the garage door operator such as via communicating with a remote server associated with a user account” (emphasis added by examiner). The interaction between the remote server 220 and the GDO 212 is identical with the interaction between the vehicle transmitter 704 and the GDO 702. The claimed first communication and the window acknowledgement are signals used to establish communication between the remote server and the GDO. The barrier open request is sent from the remote server to the GDO to initiate the position change/actuation of the garage door. GIRON [0037] “the establishment of an authenticated bi-directional communication along with the user pressing the button and/or providing the user input to the vehicle transmitter 804 for the second time, the GDO 802 may initiate the actuation of the garage door 106.”
In summary, GIRON teaches to establish a secure communication path for predetermined window of time between a barrier operator and an electronic device via a server for the purpose of transmitting an open request to the barrier operator if the open request was received during the window of time in which the secure communication is established. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GIRON to the teachings of MENKVELD according to known methods such that MENKVELD’s system and barrier operator would have been configured to receive a first communication from the remote server, the first communication being an advertisement message/signal used to establish a secure communication path between the remote server and the garage door opener, such that response open request could be received during a window of time, in which the secure communication path is established, to yield the predictable result of opening the garage door for an authorized user and preventing an unauthorized person for gaining access to the area protected by the garage door.
Regarding claim 17, MENKVELD-GIRON teaches the system of claim 16 as outlined above. GIRON teaches in response to receipt of the barrier open request after the window of time has elapsed, reject the barrier open request [[0037] “establishment of an authenticated bi-directional communication along with the user pressing the button and/or providing the user input to the vehicle transmitter 804 for the second time, the GDO 802 may initiate the actuation of the garage door 106” [0017] the established communication path is available for a few second only to perform opening of garage door before the secure connection may be closed such that an actuation request received after the secure connection is closed is not implemented (i.e., ignored/rejected)].
Regarding claim 19, MENKVELD-GIRON teaches the system of claim 16 as outlined above. MENKVELD teaches a local transmitter to transmit barrier open requests to the barrier operator [Fig. 2 205].
Regarding claim 20, MENKVELD-GIRON teaches the system of claim 16 as outlined above. GIRON teaches that barrier operator/garage door opener comprising a controller and a wireless transmitter [[0015] Fig. 2 GDO 212 comprises control circuit 202 to control operations of GDO motor and communication circuitry 221 to communicate wirelessly). MENKVELD teaches that the barrier control module/command device can integrate with any garage door opener [0020] thus implying that retro fitting existing barrier operators is an expected use of the command device; and teaches the command device being external and communicatively coupled to the barrier operator [Fig. 2] such that it could act as a remote module configured to wirelessly transmit the barrier open request to the barrier controller of the barrier operator.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENKVELD-GIRON in view of HULSE (US20230068611A1).
Regarding claim 3, MENKVELD-GIRON teaches the barrier operator of claim 1 as outlined above. MENKVELD-GIRON are not relied on to receive a timer value for the timer. However, HULSE in an analogous art teaches to receive an open request with a delivery timer value [0011]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of HULSE to the teachings of MENKVELD-GIRON according to known methods such that the first communication received from the server would have included the timer value taught by HULSE such that the timer would be configured with the timer value to yield the predictable result of closing the barrier in the case that a delivery person did not close the barrier after delivering a package to the area protected by the barrier.
Regarding claim 18, MENKVELD-GIRON teaches the system of claim 16 as outlined above. MENKVELD-GIRON are not relied on to receive a timer value for the timer. However, HULSE in an analogous art teaches to receive an open request with a delivery timer value [0011]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of HULSE to the teachings of MENKVELD-GIRON according to known methods such that the first communication received from the server would have included the timer value taught by HULSE such that the timer would be configured with the timer value to yield the predictable result of closing the barrier in the case that a delivery person did not close the barrier after delivering a package to the area protected by the barrier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
French (US20130081329A1) teaches an automatic garage door closing device configured to close a garage door once a predetermined period of time has lapsed after the garage door was opened and motion is no longer detected.
Juster (US20180337932A1) teaches a cyber-physical security module configured to limit transmission of physical signals between a device controller and a controlled device.
Yoon (US20200183388A1) teaches generating a parking commencement signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights