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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed November 18, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because “the change the movement” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward and confusing. It is suggested the applicant insert --of-- following “change” to avoid confusion.
Claim 3 is objected to because “a biasing element” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the biasing element set forth above or is attempting to set forth another biasing element in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 10 is objected to because “a biasing element” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the biasing element set forth above or is attempting to set forth another biasing element in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 18 is objected to because “the change the movement” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward and confusing. It is suggested the applicant insert --of-- following “change” to avoid confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Villaret et al. (US 2019/0386554). Villaret et al. discloses a handicap switch 800 (fig. 8) operably couplable to a movable barrier movable by a barrier operating system between open and closed positions, the barrier operating system comprising a controller, the handicap switch comprising:
a base (labeled below);
a push plate 809;
a biasing element 810 comprising a first portion (labeled below) and a second portion (labeled below), the first portion coupled to the base and the second portion coupled to the push plate 809;
an energy harvester 801 configured to convert kinetic energy into electrical energy; and a transmitter 803 powered by the electrical energy and configured to wirelessly send a signal to the controller (claim 14);
further comprising wherein the biasing element 810 is configured to generate the kinetic energy, the kinetic energy resulting from a mechanical force applied to an input surface (labeled below) of the handicap switch (claim 15);
wherein the transmitter 803 is further configured to wirelessly send the signal to cause the controller to change movement of the movable barrier between the open and closed positions, and wherein the change the movement of the movable barrier includes starting the movement, halting the movement, slowing the movement, accelerating the movement, reversing the movement, or pausing the movement (claim 18);
wherein the transmitter 803 is further configured to wirelessly send the signal to the controller before or at the same time (see lines 15-19 of paragraph 135 and lines 1-4 of paragraph 136) as the harvested kinetic energy reaches a threshold amount (claim 19);
wherein the handicap switch 800 is adapted to be coupled to a wall isolated from the movable barrier (claim 20).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 2020/0112240). Nakamura discloses a handicap switch 10 (fig. 1) operably couplable to a movable barrier movable by a barrier operating system between open and closed positions, the barrier operating system comprising a controller, the handicap switch comprising:
a base 12;
a push plate 11;
a biasing element 23e (fig. 6) comprising a first portion 23c (fig. 5) and a second portion 23d, the first portion 23c coupled to the base 12 and the second portion 23d coupled to the push plate 11;
an energy harvester 23f, 23g (fig. 6) configured to convert kinetic energy into electrical energy; and a transmitter 26 (fig. 5) powered by the electrical energy and configured to wirelessly send a signal to the controller (claim 14);
further comprising wherein the biasing element 23e is configured to generate the kinetic energy, the kinetic energy resulting from a mechanical force applied to an input surface 11a (fig. 1) of the handicap switch (claim 15);
wherein the energy harvester 23f, 23g includes a piezoelectric material, as set forth on line 3 of paragraph 91, deformable by the mechanical force applied to the input surface 11a to generate the electrical energy (claim 16).
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass et al. (US 2021/0090427) in view of Villaret et al. (US 2019/0386554). Hass et al. discloses a system comprising:
a movable barrier 42 (fig. 1); and
a barrier operating system 40 (fig. 1) configured to move the movable barrier 42 between open and closed positions, the barrier operating system comprising:
a handicap switch 136 (fig. 2, lines 1-13 of paragraph 57) operably coupled to the movable barrier 42 via a wired connection as shown in figure 2; and
a controller 58 (fig. 2) configured to:
receive a signal from the handicap switch 136; and
change, in response to the signal, movement of the movable barrier between the open and closed positions (claim 1);
wherein change the movement of the movable barrier 42 includes starting the movement (opening the movable barrier), halting the movement (holding the movable barrier in the open position as set forth on lines 41-43 of paragraph 82), slowing the movement (adjusting the speed of the movable barrier as set forth on lines 6-7 of paragraph 82), accelerating the movement (the movable barrier is accelerated as the movable barrier is opened), reversing the movement (closing the movable barrier after opening the movable barrier), or pausing the movement (holding the movable barrier in the opened position for a period of time as set forth on lines 41-43 of column 82) (claim 2);
wherein the handicap switch 136 is coupled to a wall 38 (see lines 12-13 of paragraph 57), wherein the wall 38 is isolated from the movable barrier 42 (claim 7).
Hass et al. is silent concerning a handicap switch powered by an energy harvester.
However, Villaret et al. discloses a handicap switch 800 (fig. 8) operably coupled to a device (not shown, but set forth on lines 2-7 of paragraph 134) and powered by an energy harvester 801, the handicap switch comprising: a base (labeled below); a push plate 809 and a biasing element 810 comprising a first portion (labeled below) and a second portion (labeled below), the first portion coupled to the base and the second portion coupled to the push plate (claim 1);
wherein the energy harvester harvests kinetic energy generated by a biasing element 810, the kinetic energy resulting from a mechanical force applied to an input surface (labeled below) of the switch 800 (claim 3);
wherein the biasing element 810 is deformed by the mechanical force applied to the input surface to generate the kinetic energy (claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the handicap switch of Hass et al. with the handicap switch, as taught by Villaret et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to remove the need to connect the handicap switch to the movable barrier via wires and thus increase the ease with which the switch can be installed and to increase the number of positions in which the switch can be installed.
With respect to claim 5, the switch 800 is configured to wirelessly transmit (via the radio emitter 803 and antenna 805 as shown in figure 8) a signal to the controller 58 of Hass et al.
With respect to claim 6, the signal 804 (fig. 8 of Villaret et al.) is wirelessly transmitted to the controller 58 (fig. 2 of Hass et al.) before or at the same time (see lines 15-19 of paragraph 135 and lines 1-4 of paragraph 136) as the harvested kinetic energy reaches a threshold amount.
With respect to claims 8-13, the use of the system of Hass et al., as modified above, would inherently lead to the method steps in claims 8-13.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villaret et al. as applied to claims 14, 15 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Furukawa et al. (US 2017/0047866).
Villaret et al. discloses that the energy harvester 801 includes at least one magnet 807 movable by the mechanical force applied to the input surface to generate the electrical energy, but is silent concerning the energy harvester including a coil.
However, Furukawa et al. discloses a handicap switch (not numbered, but set forth in paragraph 205) comprising an energy harvester which includes a coil 3 and at least one magnet 6, 22 movable by a mechanical force to generate the electrical energy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the energy harvester 801 of Villaret et al. with a coil construction, as taught by Furukawa et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to increase the amount of electricity that can be generated by the energy harvester.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are largely moot in view of the new grounds of rejection or are not persuasive.
The applicant’s comments concerning Nakamura are relevant to the current rejection and are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below. The applicant argues that Nakamura fails to disclose a handicap switch comprising a base, a push plate, a biasing element comprising a first portion and a second portion, the first portion coupled to the base and the second portion coupled to the push plate. This is not found to be persuasive because Nakamura discloses a base 12, a push plate 11, a biasing element 23e (see paragraph 92 which discloses the element 23e as being made from spring steel) comprising a first portion 23c (fig. 5) and a second portion 23d, the first portion 23c coupled to the base 12 via the screws 25 and the second portion 23d coupled to the push plate 11. Note that the first connecting part 32 (fig. 4) is connected to the button lower part 60 via the opening parts 34 (fig. 4) and the protrusions 63 (fig. 9) as set forth in paragraph 153. Since the button 11 and the button lower part 60 are fixed as set forth in paragraph 73, the push plate 11 is coupled to the second portion 23d of the biasing element 23e as shown in figure 10a.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634