DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deneen et al. [US 2016/0300415] in view of Farber et al. [US 2012/0092125]
Per claim 1. Deneen discloses a barrier operator for manipulating a barrier, the barrier operator configured to:
receive a command from a server (62), in response to receiving the barrier movement command, control module 20 executes the change status command by move the barrier to open/close the barrier [Fig. 8, para. 54] and the buzzer and warning light 124 perform an imminent motion notification [para. 39] and the control module 20 wirelessly communicates the change in barrier status to server 62 [para. 52]
Deneen does not explicitly mention that send an acknowledgement signal to the server
indicating that the imminent motion notification has been performed; after sending the acknowledgement signal, receive a barrier movement command from the server.
Farber teaches a movable barrier operation and cited that a movable barrier operator transmits a message to a remote peripheral platform (e.g. warning light fixture 116) and determining that the remote warning light fixture 116 is presently able to carry out a given functionality (e.g. generates a warning signal) [para. 15] and "a remote-close function. In such a case, the remote peripheral platform can comprise, for example, an announcing device such as a sound producing device or a light fixture and the given functionality can comprise, at least in part, having the announcing device announce a warning that the movable barrier operator will imminently carry out the particular function (such as close a movable barrier in an unattended manner, the movable barrier operator can make the aforementioned determination as a function of whether the remote peripheral platform acknowledges in an expected manner a message transmitted to the remote peripheral platform by the movable barrier operator.) [para. 16-17] and "remote-close functionality (where the movable barrier operator responds to a remote control instruction from a source that is not physically present at the movable barrier) that relies upon an ability to provide a signal (such as a flashing light) to alert persons who might be in the area of the movable barrier before actually closing the movable barrier in an unattended manner. In such a case, a message (such as an acknowledgement message) from the light fixture can provide the movable barrier operator with the required assurance that the necessary visual signal is available before acting upon such functionality." [para. 83]
In response to receive acknowledgement signal from warning light, send a barrier movement command from control circuit (201) to movable barrier operator to carry out barrier functionality, such as remote-close function [para. 87-88].
Since, Deneen teaches the multi-functional control module 20 in bidirectional wireless communication with server 70 located in Internet Cloud 70 and the server 62 designated to
provide the functions of the system 1 in sin bidirectional wireless communication with the Smartphone 40 [para. 26], which means any appropriate functions relative to control module 20 and barrier operator would communicate to server. Thus, in same analogous inventions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the acknowledgment signal from notification device to the server indicating that the imminent motion notification has been performed taught by Farber to the system of Deneen, for the benefit of increasing safety, because imminent motion notification provides warning to person approximate to the motion barrier and one way communications without acknowledgements can increase power utilization through repeated messages (Paragraph 91 of Farber et al.).
Per claim 2. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further teaches server 62 provides the functions of the system 1 is in bidirectional wireless communication with the
Smartphone 40 [026] and "if the instruction received from the Smartphone 40 is to close the garage door, but because of an obstruction in the door path, the door does not close the
control module 20 will transmit an error signal to the Smartphone 40, indicating such failure"
[para. 046]. The barrier control module 20 determined the obstruction, which the barrier is unperformable based upon the commanded movement of the barrier received from the server, that constitutes of the barrier operator is further configured to: assess, after receiving the
imminent motion notification command from the server, whether a commanded movement of the barrier is performable.
Per claim 3. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further teaches, because of
an obstruction in the door path, the door does not close the control module 20 will transmit an
error signal to the Smartphone 40, indicating such failure [para. 046], because the control module 20 is communicated with server and any appropriate functions associated with barrier control module would be send to server. That constitutes of the barrier operator is further configured to: send an indication of a result of assessing whether the commanded movement of the barrier is performable to the server.
Per claim 4. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further teaches "if the control module 20 fails to receive this change of door status information within a predetermined time period, the microprocessor 100 of the control module 20 pushes an error signal to the Smartphone 40 over the Internet 70. For example, if the instruction received from the Smartphone 40 is to close the garage door, but because of an obstruction in the door path, the door does not close and instead returns to its open position, the microprocessor 100 of the control module 20 will transmit an error signal to the Smartphone 40, indicating such failure." [para. 46].
Deneen not explicitly mention to send the indication prior to or simultaneously with performing the imminent motion notification.
In an analogous art, Farber shows at [para. 83] "a message (such as an acknowledgement message) from the light fixture can provide the movable barrier operator with the required assurance that the necessary visual signal is available before acting upon such functionality" With that, the acting functionality can be a movable barrier operator is about to performing imminent. A person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the references, would also have recognized the desirability of improved of monitoring multiple appropriate functionality associated with the performing of movable barrier operator, such as acknowledge signal indicated that the warning light is performable and that the movable barrier operator can be performed thereafter. With numbers of movable barrier functional information are communicate to server, the barrier performable indication information would reasonably send to server as an acknowledge signal. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to send the movable barrier performable indication message to user simultaneously with performing the imminent motion notification, so that the user acknowledge that the movable barrier movement command would be performed imminently, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because sending the indication before or simultaneously with imminent motion notification (e.g. warning light) as claimed has properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to send the performable indication at the same time with imminent motion notification as claimed.
Per claim 5. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further teaches server 62 provides the functions of the system 1 is in bidirectional wireless communication with the Smartphone 40 [026] and "if the instruction received from the Smartphone 40 is to close the garage door, but because of an obstruction in the door path, the door does not close
The control module 20 will transmit an error signal to the Smartphone 40, indicating such failure" [para. 046], except for not explicitly mention the detector is an optical sensor, Farber teaches the obstacle detector is an optical sensor (e.g. infrared-pulse beams) [para. 25]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute a well-known element for another have a predictable result, the substitution would have a similar result, because the well-known optical sensor commonly uses for sensing obstruction by object.
Per claim 6. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, except for not explicitly mention
of verifying the barrier operator is not in an error state. Deneen further teaches "This change of door status should be detected by the relevant position detector, transmitting the change of door status to the control module 20 and thereafter, the Smartphone 40, as previously described. However, if the control module 20 fails to receive this change of door status information within a predetermined time period, the microprocessor 100 of the control module 20 pushes an error signal to the Smartphone 40 over the Internet 70." [para. 046] which means that the change door status is not received at control module within a predetermined time, something happen and the error signal sent to user.
Per claim 7. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further teaches "if the instruction received from the Smartphone 40 is to close the garage door, but because of an obstruction in the door path, the door does not close and instead returns to its open position, the microprocessor 100 of the control module 20 will transmit an error signal to the Smartphone 40, indicating such failure." [para. 46]. The control module 20 checked for obstruction before carry out closed commanded. That constitutes of the barrier operator is configured to assess that the commanded movement of the barrier is performable by verifying that the barrier is in a position that will allow execution of the commanded movement.
Per claim 8. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further teaches if the instruction received from the Smartphone 40 is to close the garage door, but because of an obstruction in the door path, the door does not close and instead returns to its open position, the microprocessor 100 of the control module 20 will transmit an error signal to the Smartphone 40, indicating such failure. [para. 46]. The control module received a closing commanded from server and prepared to carry out the closing function. That constitutes of the commanded
movement of the barrier is transitioning from an open position to a closed position.
Per claim 9. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further teaches if the instruction received from the Smartphone 40 is to close the garage door, but because of an obstruction in the door path, the door does not close and instead returns to its open position, the microprocessor 100 of the control module 20 will transmit an error signal to the Smartphone 40, indicating such failure. [para. 46]. The control module checked for a closing commanded from server and send an indication of the checked result to server (e.g. Smartphone). That constitutes of asses, after receiving the barrier movement command, whether a commanded movement of the barrier is performable; and send an indication of a result of determining whether the commanded movement of the barrier is performable to the server.
Per claim 10. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further teaches the barrier operator is configured to communicate with the server over a wireless network via an internet router [Fig. 2 and para. 32].
Per claims 11-12. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further shows a main processor 100 configured to process multiple features (e.g. communication with Internet and server and control the movement of the barrier 128 and warning light 124) [Fig. 4].
Although, Deneen does not explicitly mention a specific first processor and second processor. However, Deneen shows the MCU (100) which configured to perform multiple different functions or tasks (e.g., communicates with Internet via 102, communicates with input buttons 140-152, communicates with Bluetooth processor 114 (e.g., position sensors), controls doors by the relays 128 and controls warning light and sounder 122,124 [see Fig. 4]. Thus, in order to process different input and output data from different devices as mentioned above, the MCU 100 would have multiple different processing units for each task. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention, to recognize that MCU 100 would have multiple different processors for each
appropriate functions within the integrated door control module 100, including a first processor and second processor, the benefit of separated processors for each different functions are to
simplify production of the module using cache different processor for each task.
Per claim 13. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further teaches a housing (20) [Figs. 1-2 and 4 and para. 36-39]. That constitutes of a housing, wherein the barrier control module and the barrier controller are disposed within the housing.
Per claim 14. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further teaches "The change in barrier status is communicated through the network and stored on one or more servers 62, as indicated at block 708. The servers 62 communicate the change in status of the barrier to the Smartphone 40" [para. 52]. The barrier status changed then transmitted to server and Smartphone. That constitutes of the barrier operator is configured to, after moving the barrier, transmit a signal to the server indicating that a commanded movement of the barrier has been completed.
Per claim 15. The limitations are similar to those in claim 1 that the rejection would be in the same manner.
Per claim 16. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Farber et al. further teaches a failure to receive an acknowledgement transmission (for example, with a predetermined period of time, such as 500 milliseconds, one second, five seconds, or some other duration of choice) from the remote peripheral platform in response to the aforementioned transmitted message can provide a basis for prohibiting the given functionality. [para. 90]. That the duration time delay
for transmitting the acknowledgement signal. That constitutes of the server is configured to initiate a time-out function in response to sending the imminent motion notification command,
the time-out function including a predefined period of time.
Per claim 17. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Farber et al. further teaches a
failure to receive an acknowledgement transmission (for example, with a predetermined period
of time, such as 500 milliseconds, one second, five seconds, or some other duration of choice) from the remote peripheral platform in response to the aforementioned transmitted message can provide a basis for prohibiting the given functionality. [para. 90]. That constitutes of the server is configured to discard the barrier movement command, without sending the barrier movement command to the barrier operator, if the acknowledgement signal is not received within the predefined period of time.
Per claim 18. A barrier operator system, comprising:
a barrier operator (.g. 50) including: a motor configured to manipulate a barrier [Fig. 1,
para. 25]; an alert module (122 and 124);
one or more processors (114 and 110) configured to control the motor and the alert module [Fig. 4 and para. 36]; and a server (62), wherein the barrier operator system (20) is configured to: receive, at the server, a message from a remote user device (e.g. Smartphone 40) indicating a request to move the barrier [para. 32 and 26]; control module 20 and the motor to execute the change status command by the barrier operator to execute the barrier movement command, such as to open/close the barrier [Fig. 8, para. 54];
send, by the server, an imminent motion notification command to the operator (e.g. the buzzer and warning light 124 perform an imminent motion notification [para. 39];
Deneen does not explicitly mention send by the server in response to receipt of the
acknowledgement signal, a barrier movement command to the barrier operator.
Farber teaches a movable barrier operation and cited that a movable barrier operator transmits a message to a remote peripheral platform (e.g. warning light fixture 116) and determining that the remote warning light fixture 116 is presently able to carry out a given functionality (e.g. generates a warning signal) [para. 15] and "a remote-close function. In such a case, the remote peripheral platform can comprise, for example, an announcing device such as a sound producing device or a light fixture and the given functionality can comprise, at least in part, having the announcing device announce a warning that the movable barrier operator will imminently carry out the particular function (such as close a movable barrier in an unattended manner, the movable barrier operator can make the aforementioned determination as a function of whether the remote peripheral platform acknowledges in an expected manner a message transmitted to the remote peripheral platform by the movable barrier operator.) [para. 16-17] and "remote-close functionality (where the movable barrier operator responds to a remote control instruction from a source that is not physically present at the movable barrier) that relies upon an ability to provide a signal (such as a flashing light) to alert persons who might be in the area of the movable barrier before actually closing the movable barrier in an unattended manner. In such a case, a message (such as an acknowledgement message) from the light fixture can provide the movable barrier operator with the required assurance that the necessary visual signal is available before acting upon such functionality. [para. 83]
In response to receive acknowledgement signal from warning light, send a barrier
movement command from control circuit (201) to movable barrier operator to carry out barrier functionality, such as remote-close function [para. 87-88].
Since, Deneen teaches the multi-functional control module 20 in bidirectional wireless communication with server 70 located in Internet Cloud 70 and the server 62 designated to provide the functions of the system 1 in sin bidirectional wireless communication with the Smartphone 40 [para. 26], which means any appropriate functions relative to control module 20 and barrier operator would communicate to server. Thus, in same analogous inventions, it have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the acknowledgment signal from notification device to the server indicating that the imminent motion notification has been performed taught by Farber to the system of Deneen, for the benefit of increasing safety, because imminent motion notification provides warning to person approximate to the motion barrier and one way communications without acknowledgements can increase power utilization through repeated messages (Paragraph 91 of Farber et al.).
Per claim 19. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further teaches
"Embodiments may transmit the change in barrier status immediately upon detection by the position detector 10 or may wait to transmit the change in barrier status according to a pre-established periodic pulse rate." [051]. That the determination of barrier performable indication can be sent immediately after obstruction verification by the obstruction detector, which the cleared of obstruction indication can be transmitted to control module and server prior to the imminent motion notification to warning light or announcer.
Per claim 20. Deneen and Farber made obvious above, Deneen further teaches "The
change in barrier status is communicated through the network and stored on one or more servers 62, as indicated at block 708. The servers 62 communicate the change in status of the barrier to the Smartphone 40" [para. 52]. The barrier status changed then transmitted to server and Smartphone. That constitutes of the barrier operator is configured to, transmit to the server, after executing the barrier movement command, a signal indicating that the barrier has been moved.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 15, and 18 are correct that Deneen et al. (US 2016/0300415) does not explicitly disclose:
An imminent motion notification step,
Sending an explicit acknowledgment to the server upon completion of the imminent motion,
A protocol where the barrier operator only receives a movement command from the server after sending such an acknowledgment.
However, as stated in the Non-Final and instant office action, Deneen is not being relied upon alone when teaching said limitations.
Farber et al. (US 2012/0092125) teaches a system in which a movable barrier operator transmits a message to a remote warning device (e.g., a light or sounder), waits for an acknowledgment from that device confirming it is ready to perform a notification, and only then proceeds to carry out a function such as closing the barrier. Farber specifically describes withholding the movement command until the warning device’s readiness (acknowledgment) is confirmed ([0087], [0090], Claim 1, Claim 10, Claim 14).
While Farber may not use the exact claim language, it teaches or renders obvious a protocol where an acknowledgment from the warning device serves as a prerequisite for barrier movement, ensuring the imminent motion notification has been (or will be) performed.Thus, the combination of Farber (with or without Deneen) meets or renders obvious the claimed acknowledgment step.
However, the protocol and rationale in Farber can reasonably be interpreted or modified by a person of ordinary skill to require acknowledgment after performance, as a routine safety improvement (supported by KSR). The combination of references would be for improved safety and reliability is a predictable and logical step, not requiring undue experimentation.
In accordance with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), it is not necessary for the prior art to expressly teach or suggest every detail of the claimed invention. The cited references, when combined, render the claimed sequence and acknowledgment protocol obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to require confirmation that a safety notification has been performed before allowing remote movement of a barrier, in order to enhance safety and reliability in predictable ways.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to combine Deneen’s cloud-based remote control architecture with Farber’s safety protocol to ensure that, before a remote movement command is executed, the system:
Sends a command to the barrier operator to perform a notification,
Waits for acknowledgment that the notification has been performed,
Only then sends the movement command.
This combination would provide improved safety by ensuring users in the vicinity are warned before barrier movement, and that such warning is confirmed before action, addressing a known problem in remotely operated barrier systems and be a predictable and beneficial modification.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret or modify Farber’s acknowledgment protocol so that the acknowledgment is sent after the notification is actually performed, rather than merely upon readiness, to provide an extra measure of safety and compliance with regulatory or user expectations. This is a routine design choice, especially in light of the well-known need to confirm completion of safety notifications before performing hazardous actions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVETTA W GOINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM 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.
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.
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689