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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on March 2, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-12, 16, and 20 have been amended.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0137941; hereinafter as, “Bauer”) in view of Aggarwal et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0191017; hereinafter as, “Aggarwal”), and further in view of Cate et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0375287; hereinafter as, “Cate”).
As per claim 1, Bauer discloses a door operating system (Fig. 1: an internet-connected garage door control system 10) to move a door between a closed position and an open position (e.g., para. [0012]-[0013]), the door operating system comprising:
a door opening mechanism (Fig. 1: a garage door opener 20) including a first receiver configured to receive an RF signal and a second receiver configured to receive an internet signal (see e.g., para. [0003] & [0012]: the garage door opener is configured to open and close the garage door in response to signals received through the internet and in response to RF signals);
a user controller (Figs. 1-2: an in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50) in operable communication with the door opening mechanism (20) (e.g., para. [0014]-[0016]: the in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50 transmits and receives signals to and from the garage door opener 20), the user controller (50) comprising:
an RF transmitter (Fig. 2: RF transceiver 62) configured to transmit the RF signal to the door opening mechanism (see e.g., para. [0015]-[0017]);
a wireless internet transmitter (Fig. 2: an internet-connected device shown in the form of a Bluetooth transceiver 66) configured to transmit the internet signal to the door opening mechanism (see e.g., para. [0015] & [0020]-[0021]); and
a user interface (Fig. 2: user interface 72) including at least one user input element (see Fig. 2; para. [0015]: at least one user-actuated input 72);
a control system (Fig. 2: controller 70) in operable communication with the door opening mechanism and the user controller (e.g., para. [0015]-[0016]: “Controller 70 may be a microprocessor programmed to respond to inputs from various components to control RF transceiver 62 to receive and transmit signals using antenna 64 that may be received from or transmitted to a garage door opener 20.”), the control system (70) configured to:
generate and exchange a key during an initial pairing (e.g., para. [0021]: “Setting up this initial connection and user authentication…The trigger could also be from recognition of a particular WiFi SSID (as sensed by internet-connected mobile device 40 or an in-vehicle WiFi interface 82)”; para. [0022]: “Optionally, rather than relying on a password in the internet-connected mobile device 40, a rolling code may be generated in in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50 and passed to the garage door opener 20 via the internet 30.”);
receive an input from the user controller to open or close the door (e.g., para. [0015]-[0016]).
Bauer does not explicitly disclose the control system configured to: determine if the RF signal from the RF transmitter will be received by the door opening mechanism.
However, in the same field of wireless controlled devices, Aggarwal teaches a control system configured to: determine if the RF signal from the RF transmitter will be received by the receiver (see e.g., Fig. 5; para. [0005]-[0006], [0041] & [0072]-[0077]: the system determines that one of electronic device(s) for which a control signal was transmitted using a first communication protocol (e.g., an RF communication protocol) did not react to the transmitted control signal. A second communication protocol may be selected for transmitting a second control signal to the device, where the device did not react to the first control signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the door operating system of Bauer by incorporating the RF signal reception technique taught by Aggarwal. Bauer already teaches using RF signals to operate a door, and Aggarwal teaches that a control device can determine whether an RF signal will be successfully received by a receiver by sending a signal and receiving an acknowledgement in return. Because both references address the general problem of ensuring reliable communication between a transmitter and a receiver, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known signal receipt procedure from Aggarwal to the door operating system of Bauer in order to improve reliability when determining whether the RF command will reach the door opening mechanism. Doing so would merely involve applying a known technique to a similar device in the same predicable manner and would have yielded no unexpected results.
Bauer in view of Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose the control system configured to: generate and exchange a key with a specific application programming interface during an initial pairing.
However, in the same field of the pairing of transmitters and network-enabled moveable barrier operators, Cate teaches: the control system configured to generate and exchange a key with a specific application programming interface during an initial pairing (see e.g., para. [0057]-[0059]: pairing a transmitter with a movable barrier operator include utilizing web and RESTful APIs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the door operating system of Bauer in view of Aggarwal by incorporating a specific application programming interface taught by Cate. Doing so would enable standardized communication between the door operating system and external applications, allowing real-time monitoring, remote access management, and enhanced security.
As per claim 2, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Cate teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Aggarwal further teaches: wherein the control system is further configured to, prioritize sending the RF signal (see Aggarwal, e.g., para. [0055]: discloses a prioritization of communication protocols) and, upon a determination that the RF signal will not be received by the door opening mechanism, cause the wireless internet transmitter to transmit the internet signal to the door opening mechanism (see Aggarwal, e.g., para. [0077]: the system may select the second communication protocol as an alternative communication protocol automatically upon determining that the electronic device did not react to the first control signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the door operating system of Bauer by incorporating the teachings of Aggarwal. Bauer already teaches that the garage-door system can be controlled either by a short-range RF link or, when out of range, by an Internet-based signal. Aggarwal teaches detecting when an RF signal will not reach its intended device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings so that, once the system determines that the RF signal will not be received, it can automatically fall back to the alternative communication path (the internet) already provided in Bauer. Doing so improves system reliability by ensuring that the garage door still receives the command even when the RF link is unavailable.
As per claim 3, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Cate teach all of the limitations of claim 2 stated above where Aggarwal further teaches: wherein the control system is configured to determine if the RF signal from the RF transmitter will be received by the door opening mechanism by causing the RF transmitter to transmit the RF signal to the door opening mechanism and determining if the RF signal has been received by the door opening mechanism (see Aggarwal, e.g., para. [0072]-[0077]).
As per claim 4, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Cate teach all of the limitations of claim 3 stated above where Aggarwal further teaches: wherein the control system is configured to determine if the RF signal has been received by the door opening mechanism by receiving then sending an echo signal back from the door opening mechanism (see Aggarwal, para. [0076]: determining whether an echo/ack is received or not received).
As per claim 5, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Cate teach all of the limitations of claim 3 stated above where the combination further teaches: wherein the control system is configured to determine if the RF signal has been received by the door opening mechanism by receiving status information by the internet signal if the door is in the open position or the closed position (see Bauer, e.g., para. [0020]: “By utilizing (a) a Bluetooth or WiFi link as an interface to an internet-connected mobile device 40 such as a smartphone or a cellular phone module, (b) WiMax, or (c) a wired or wireless link as an interface to an embedded vehicle cellular phone 80 (FIG. 2) or other means of internet access, in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50 can determine garage door status and control the garage door when the vehicle is beyond the range of a traditional short range garage door link.”; Aggarwal, e.g., para. [0063]-[0065] & [0074]: “…verify whether the device changed a state (e.g., woke up from a sleep mode, applied a navigation command, adjusted a volume setting, etc.) corresponding to the transmitted control signal.”).
As per claim 6, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Cate teach all of the limitations of claim 5 stated above where Bauer further teaches: wherein the user controller includes a status indicator that indicates if the door is in the open position or the closed position (see Bauer, e.g., para. [0020]: “In-vehicle remote garage door opener 50 can display the door open/closed status in the vehicle using visual indicator(s) 74, sound, a display, an icon, or other means.”).
As per claim 8, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Cate teach all of the limitations of claim 2 stated above where Bauer further teaches: wherein the control system is configured to authenticate the key prior to operating the door opening mechanism (see Bauer, e.g., para. [0021]-[0022]).
As per claim 9, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Cate teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Bauer further teaches: wherein the control system is further configured to automatically transmit the key to an intermediary server (Bauer, e.g., Fig. 1: internet-connected mobile device 40) during the initial pairing (see Bauer, e.g., para. [0020]-[0022]: “One implementation could require password entry, face identification or fingerprint authentication on the mobile device 40 when not linked to the in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50. When the mobile device 40 is linked to the in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50, a rolling code could be passed in place of the authentication procedure.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Cate, and further in view of Lickfelt et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0063860; hereinafter as, “Lickfelt”).
As per claim 7, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Cate teach all of the limitations of claim 2 stated above where the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein the control system is configured to determine if the RF signal from the RF transmitter will be received by the door opening mechanism by determining a proximity of the door opening mechanism to the user controller by utilizing a global positioning system associated with the user controller.
However, in the same field of remote keyless entry system, Lickfelt teaches: wherein the control system is configured to determine if the RF signal from the RF transmitter will be received by the door opening mechanism by determining a proximity of the door opening mechanism to the user controller (see e.g., para. [0038] & [0066]-[0067]: “If it is determined that the portable device 122 is within a proximity range (at step 406) (i.e., the proximity sensors sense the proximity signal being sent from the portable device 122), the ECU 106 sends a signal to the vehicle finding response module 108 to enable the low power vehicle finding response at step 408. If it is determined that the portable device 122 is not within a proximity range (at step 406), upon receipt of the vehicle finder actuation signal by the onboard receiver 104, the vehicle finding response module 108 enables the high power vehicle finding response at step 410.”) by utilizing a global positioning system associated with the user controller (e.g., para. [0068]: “the target vehicle finder function system 100 can utilize a portable electronic device (i.e., smart phone, tablet, etc.) that include GPS sensors that interact with GPS (navigation) systems within the vehicle 102 to locate the portable electronic device (i.e., the user carrying the portable electronic device). The target vehicle finder system 100 can be initialized based on the distance that the portable electronic device is determined to be located from the vehicle 102 at the point in time that the input has been received on the plurality of input buttons 136 to enable the vehicle finder system via the portable device 122.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the door operating system of Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Cate by incorporating the proximity detection technique taught by Lickfelt. Doing so would allow determining if RF signal will or will not be received by the door opening mechanism based on proximity of the user device to the door opening mechanism.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Overgaard (WIPO Publication No. WO2016023558A1).
As per claim 11, Bauer discloses a door operating system (Fig. 1: an internet-connected garage door control system 10) to move a door between a closed position and an open position (e.g., para. [0012]-[0013]), the door operating system comprising:
a door opening mechanism (Fig. 1: a garage door opener 20) including a first receiver configured to receive a short range signal and a second receiver configured to receive an internet signal (see e.g., para. [0003] & [0012]: the garage door opener is configured to open and close the garage door in response to signals received through the internet and in response to RF signals);
a user controller (Figs. 1-2: an in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50) in operable communication with the door opening mechanism (20) (e.g., para. [0014]-[0016]: the in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50 transmits and receives signals to and from the garage door opener 20), the user controller (50) comprising:
a short range transmitter (Fig. 2: RF transceiver 62) capable of transmitting the short range signal to the door opening mechanism (see e.g., para. [0015]-[0017]);
a wireless internet transmitter (Fig. 2: an internet-connected device shown in the form of a Bluetooth transceiver 66) capable of transmitting the internet signal to the door opening mechanism (see e.g., para. [0015] & [0020]-[0021]); and
a user interface (Fig. 2: user interface 72) including at least one user input element (see Fig. 2; para. [0015]: at least one user-actuated input 72);
a control system (Fig. 2: controller 70) in operable communication with the door opening mechanism and the user controller (e.g., para. [0015]-[0016]: “Controller 70 may be a microprocessor programmed to respond to inputs from various components to control RF transceiver 62 to receive and transmit signals using antenna 64 that may be received from or transmitted to a garage door opener 20.”), the control system (70) configured to:
generate the short range signal (see Bauer, e.g., para. [0015]-[0017])
generate the internet signal and transfer a key to an intermediary server (Bauer, e.g., para. [0021]-[0022]); and
Bauer does not explicitly disclose the control system configured to: only transmit the short range signal to move the door between the open position and the closed position, until it is determined that the short range signal has not been or will not be received by the door opening mechanism.
However, in the same field of wireless controlled devices, Aggarwal teaches a control system configured to: only transmit the short range signal to move the door between the open position and the closed position, until it is determined that the short range signal has not been or will not be received by the receiver (see e.g., Fig. 5; para. [0005]-[0006], [0041] & [0072]-[0077]: the system determines that one of electronic device(s) for which a control signal was transmitted using a first communication protocol (e.g., an RF communication protocol) did not react to the transmitted control signal. A second communication protocol may be selected for transmitting a second control signal to the device, where the device did not react to the first control signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the door operating system of Bauer by incorporating the RF signal reception technique taught by Aggarwal. Bauer already teaches using RF signals to operate a door, and Aggarwal teaches that a control device can determine whether an RF signal will be successfully received by a receiver by sending a signal and receiving an acknowledgement in return. Because both references address the general problem of ensuring reliable communication between a transmitter and a receiver, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known signal receipt procedure from Aggarwal to the door operating system of Bauer in order to improve reliability when determining whether the RF command will reach the door opening mechanism. Doing so would merely involve applying a known technique to a similar device in the same predicable manner and would have yielded no unexpected results.
Bauer in view of Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose the control system configure to: generate the short range signal and exchange a key during an initial pairing; and generate the internet signal and transfer the key to an intermediary server.
However, in the same field of a method for operating a door lock by encrypted wireless signals, Overgaard discloses: the control system configure to generate the short range signal and exchange a key during an initial pairing (see e.g., page 7, lines 16-25: “Alternatively, the SLEK is provided by the lock and send to the mobile device via the short range communication link”; i.e., exchange a key (SLEK) over the short-range link during the initial association between lock and mobile device); and
generate the internet signal and transfer the key to an intermediary server (page 7, lines 16-18: “Alternatively, the SLEK is provided by the lock…and forwarded to the server by an internet connection”; i.e., transfer the key (SLEK) to a server via an internet connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the door operating system of Bauer in view of Aggarwal by incorporating exchange of a key technique taught by Overgaard. Doing so would prevent unauthorized access by providing a unique encryption and decryption code for information between the door opening mechanism and the server which cannot be decrypted by the user/mobile device or other third party devices.
As per claim 13, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Overgaard teach all of the limitations of claim 11 stated above where Bauer further teaches: wherein the short range signal is an RF signal (see Bauer, e.g., para. [0015]-[0017]).
As per claim 14, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Overgaard teach all of the limitations of claim 11 stated above where Bauer further teaches: wherein the door is a garage door (see Bauer, e.g., Fig. 1; para. [0012]-[0014]: garage door control) and the user controller is at least partially located in a rearview mirror (see Bauer, e.g., Fig. 3; para. [0018]-[0019]: rearview assembly 100).
As per claim 15, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Overgaard teach all of the limitations of claim 11 stated above where Bauer further teaches: wherein the door is a gate door (see Bauer, e.g., Fig. 1; para. [0014]: “Although primarily used for garage door control, in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50 is also capable of other remote control such as the control of lighting and gates.”) and the user controller is associated with at least one of a vehicle, airplane, or a water vessel (see Bauer, Figs. 1-2: the in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50).
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Aggarwal, and further in view of Lickfelt et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0063860; hereinafter as, “Lickfelt”).
As per claim 16, Bauer discloses a door operating system (Fig. 1: an internet-connected garage door control system 10) to move a door between a closed position and an open position (e.g., para. [0012]-[0013]), the door operating system comprising:
a door opening mechanism (Fig. 1: a garage door opener 20) including a first receiver configured to receive a short range signal and a second receiver configured to receive an internet signal (see e.g., para. [0003] & [0012]: the garage door opener is configured to open and close the garage door in response to signals received through the internet and in response to RF signals);
a user controller (Figs. 1-2: an in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50) in operable communication with the door opening mechanism (20) (e.g., para. [0014]-[0016]: the in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50 transmits and receives signals to and from the garage door opener 20), the user controller (50) comprising:
a short range transmitter (e.g., Fig. 2: RF transceiver 62) configured to transmit the short range signal to the door opening mechanism (see e.g., para. [0015]-[0017]);
a wireless internet transmitter (e.g., Fig. 2: an internet-connected device shown in the form of a Bluetooth transceiver 66) configured to transmit the internet signal to the door opening mechanism (see e.g., para. [0015] & [0020]-[0021]); and
a user interface (Fig. 2: user interface 72) including at least one user input element (see Fig. 2; para. [0015]: at least one user-actuated input 72);
a control system (Fig. 2: controller 70) in operable communication with the door opening mechanism and the user controller (e.g., para. [0015]-[0016]: “Controller 70 may be a microprocessor programmed to respond to inputs from various components to control RF transceiver 62 to receive and transmit signals using antenna 64 that may be received from or transmitted to a garage door opener 20.”), the control system (70) configured to:
initially transmit the short range signal from the short range transmitter to the door opening mechanism (e.g., para. [0004] & [0015]-[0017]: the in-vehicle remote garage door opener 50 comprises a trainable RF transceiver for transmitting an RF signal to the garage door opener); and
transmit the internet signal from the wireless internet transmitter to the door opening mechanism (see e.g., para. [0020]-[0021]).
Bauer does not explicitly disclose the control system is configured to: determine if the short range signal from the short range transmitter has been or will be received by the door opening mechanism; and if the short range signal has not been received by the door opening mechanism, transmit the internet signal from the wireless internet transmitter to the door opening mechanism.
However, in the same field of wireless controlled devices, Aggarwal teaches a control system configured to: determine if the short range signal from the short range transmitter has been or will be received by the receiver; and if the short range signal has not been received by the receiver, transmit the internet signal from the wireless internet transmitter to the receiver (see e.g., Fig. 5; para. [0005]-[0006], [0041] & [0072]-[0077]: the system determines that one of electronic device(s) for which a control signal was transmitted using a first communication protocol (e.g., an RF communication protocol) did not react to the transmitted control signal. A second communication protocol may be selected for transmitting a second control signal to the device, where the device did not react to the first control signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the door operating system of Bauer by incorporating the teachings of Aggarwal. Bauer already teaches that the garage-door system can be controlled either by a short-range RF link or, when out of range, by an Internet-based signal. Aggarwal teaches detecting when an RF signal will not reach its intended device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings so that, once the system determines that the RF signal will not be received, it can automatically fall back to the alternative communication path (the internet) already provided in Bauer. Doing so improves system reliability by ensuring that the garage door still receives the command even when the RF link is unavailable.
Bauer in view of Aggarwal does not explicitly disclose determine if the short range signal from the short range transmitter has been or will be received by the door opening mechanism based in part, on a proximity between the user controller and the door opening mechanism as determined by a global positioning system associated with the user controller and a known location of door opening mechanism.
However, in the same field of remote keyless entry system, Lickfelt teaches: determine if the short range signal from the short range transmitter has been or will be received by the door opening mechanism based in part, on a proximity between the user controller and the door opening mechanism as determined by a global positioning system associated with the user controller and a known location of door opening mechanism (see e.g., para. [0038] & [0066]-[0067]: “If it is determined that the portable device 122 is within a proximity range (at step 406) (i.e., the proximity sensors sense the proximity signal being sent from the portable device 122), the ECU 106 sends a signal to the vehicle finding response module 108 to enable the low power vehicle finding response at step 408. If it is determined that the portable device 122 is not within a proximity range (at step 406), upon receipt of the vehicle finder actuation signal by the onboard receiver 104, the vehicle finding response module 108 enables the high power vehicle finding response at step 410.”; and para. [0068]: “the target vehicle finder function system 100 can utilize a portable electronic device (i.e., smart phone, tablet, etc.) that include GPS sensors that interact with GPS (navigation) systems within the vehicle 102 to locate the portable electronic device (i.e., the user carrying the portable electronic device). The target vehicle finder system 100 can be initialized based on the distance that the portable electronic device is determined to be located from the vehicle 102 at the point in time that the input has been received on the plurality of input buttons 136 to enable the vehicle finder system via the portable device 122.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the door operating system of Bauer in view of Aggarwal by incorporating the proximity detection technique taught by Lickfelt. Doing so would allow determining if RF signal will or will not be received by the door opening mechanism based on proximity of the user device to the door opening mechanism.
As per claim 18, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Lickfelt teach all of the limitations of claim 16 stated above where Bauer further teaches: wherein the short range signal is an RF signal (see Bauer, e.g., para. [0015]-[0017]).
As per claim 19, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Lickfelt teach all of the limitations of claim 16 stated above where Aggarwal further teaches: wherein the control system is configured to determine if the short range signal from the short range transmitter has been received by the door opening mechanism by sending and receiving an echo signal (Aggarwal, e.g., para. [0076]: determining whether an echo/ack is received or not received).
As per claim 20, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Lickfelt teach all of the limitations of claim 16 stated above where Bauer further teaches: wherein the internet signal is received by the second receiver via one of a cellular network or a proximate router (see Bauer e.g., para. [0013] & [0020]-[0021]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Lickfelt, and further in view of Overgaard (WIPO Publication No. WO2016023558A1).
As per claim 17, Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Lickfelt teach all of the limitations of claim 16 stated above where Bauer further teaches: wherein the control system is further configured to initially pair the user controller to the door opening mechanism, including:
generating the short range signal (Bauer, e.g., para. [0015]-[0017])
generating the internet signal and transferring
Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Lickfelt does not explicitly disclose: generating the short range signal and exchanging a key during an initial pairing; and generating the internet signal and transferring the key to an intermediary server.
However, in the same field of a method for operating a door lock by encrypted wireless signals, Overgaard discloses: generating the short range signal and exchanging a key during an initial pairing (see e.g., page 7, lines 16-25: “Alternatively, the SLEK is provided by the lock and send to the mobile device via the short range communication link”; i.e., exchanging a key (SLEK) over the short-range link during the initial association between lock and mobile device); and
generating the internet signal and transferring the key to an intermediary server (page 7, lines 16-18: “Alternatively, the SLEK is provided by the lock…and forwarded to the server by an internet connection”; i.e., transferring the key (SLEK) to a server via an internet connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the door operating system of Bauer in view of Aggarwal and Lickfelt by incorporating exchanging of a key technique taught by Overgaard. Doing so would prevent unauthorized access by providing a unique encryption and decryption code for information between the door opening mechanism and the server which cannot be decrypted by the user/mobile device or other third party devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As per claim 10, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claim taken as a whole, wherein the wireless internet transmitter is configured to transmit the internet signal to the door opening mechanism through the intermediary server only after a determination that the RF signal from the RF transmitter has not been received by the door opening mechanism and a known location of the door opening mechanism.
As per claim 12, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claim taken as a whole, wherein the control system is further configured, upon a request from the user controller to move the door, to:
if the short range signal has not been received by the door opening mechanism, transmit the internet signal from the wireless internet transmitter to the intermediary server for authentication of the key; and
transmitting the authenticated internet signal from the intermediary server to the door opening mechanism.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Witkowski et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0059456) teaches configurable transmitters for transmitting radio frequency (RF) signals to a device remote from the vehicle.
Kelley et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0327757) teaches power-saving electronic door locks connected to a network.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights