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 .
Amendments to claims 1 and 3-8, filed 2 September 2025 have been entered into the above-identified application. Claims 2, 9-10, and 16-20 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-15 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are still objected to because reference number 22 for a mechanical arm assembly is not shown in the drawings. A replacement drawing was not included in the amendment filed 2 September 2025. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. 11,208,839).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an automatic garage door safety system comprising: a drive assembly (2) comprising a motor (28) and a mechanical arm assembly (22) configured to operatively connect said motor (28) to a garage door (10); a detection assembly (60) configured to detect an atmospheric condition (described in column 4 lines 31-37 as excess heat, carbon monoxide, smoke, etc) in a room (54) openable and closable by a garage door (10); a control unit (30) operatively connected to said motor (28) and said detection assembly (60) and configured to activate said motor (28) to open a garage door (10) upon receiving information from said detection assembly (60) indicating an atmospheric condition hazardous to humans (described in column 4 lines 31-37 as excess heat, carbon monoxide, smoke, etc, the opening of the door in response to the detection of hazardous conditions is described in column 4, lines 42-48); and a housing (26) containing said motor (28), said detection assembly (60), and said control unit (30); wherein said control unit (30) is connected to each of said motor (28) and said detection assembly (60) by electric wires (connection can be wired or wireless as described in column 3, lines 8-15); and wherein said detection assembly (60) comprises an alarm (described in column 6, lines 27-32 as the detection assembly notifying the controller which sends a signal to alarm occupants).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the automatic garage door safety system of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein said detection assembly (60) comprises a smoke detector (described in column 4, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the automatic garage door safety system of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein said detection assembly (60) comprises a carbon monoxide detector (described in column 4, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the automatic garage door safety system of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein said detection assembly (60) comprises a smoke detector and a carbon monoxide detector (described in column 4, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the automatic garage door safety system of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein said detection assembly (60) comprises a smoke detector (described in column 4, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the automatic garage door safety system of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein said detection assembly (60) comprises a carbon monoxide detector (described in column 4, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches the automatic garage door safety system of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein said detection assembly (60) comprises a smoke detector and a carbon monoxide detector (described in column 4, lines 31-33).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 14, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 11,208,839) in view of Huggins (U.S. 2018/0151006).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the automatic garage door safety system of claim 1. While Lee teaches a detection assembly (60) that can detect undesirable conditions such as excess heat, carbon monoxide, and smoke, and “other undesirable conditions”, it does not specifically mention an oxygen sensor.
Huggins teaches an assembly for a garage remote control which has the ability to detect undesirable conditions, which includes, among other things, an oxygen sensor (described in [0032], 430 could be an oxygen sensor).
Lee and Huggins are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of garage door opener safety features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Huggins and provide an automatic garage door safety system with an oxygen sensor. Doing so would detect unsafe levels of oxygen for the opener to take action and raise the garage door to raise the oxygen level to a safe level once again.
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the automatic garage door safety system of claim 1. While Lee teaches a detection assembly (60) that comprises a smoke detector and a carbon monoxide detector, and “other undesirable conditions” (described in column 4, lines 31-33), it does not specifically mention an oxygen sensor.
Huggins teaches an assembly for a garage remote control which has the ability to detect undesirable conditions, which includes, among other things, an oxygen sensor (described in [0032], 430 could be an oxygen sensor).
Lee and Huggins are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of garage door opener safety features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Huggins and provide an automatic garage door safety system with an oxygen sensor, in addition to a smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector. Doing so would detect unsafe levels of oxygen for the opener to take action and raise the garage door to raise the oxygen level to a safe level once again.
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the automatic garage door safety system of claim 1. While Lee teaches a detection assembly (60) that can detect undesirable conditions such as excess heat, carbon monoxide, and smoke, and “other undesirable conditions”, it does not specifically mention an oxygen sensor.
Huggins teaches an assembly for a garage remote control which has the ability to detect undesirable conditions, which includes, among other things, an oxygen sensor (described in [0032], 430 could be an oxygen sensor).
Lee and Huggins are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of garage door opener safety features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Huggins and provide an automatic garage door safety system with an oxygen sensor. Doing so would detect unsafe levels of oxygen for the opener to take action and raise the garage door to raise the oxygen level to a safe level once again.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the automatic garage door safety system of claim 1. While Lee teaches a detection assembly (60) that comprises a smoke detector and a carbon monoxide detector, and “other undesirable conditions” (described in column 4, lines 31-33), it does not specifically mention an oxygen sensor.
Huggins teaches an assembly for a garage remote control which has the ability to detect undesirable conditions, which includes, among other things, an oxygen sensor (described in [0032], 430 could be an oxygen sensor).
Lee and Huggins are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of garage door opener safety features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Huggins and provide an automatic garage door safety system with an oxygen sensor, in addition to a smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector. Doing so would detect unsafe levels of oxygen for the opener to take action and raise the garage door to raise the oxygen level to a safe level once again.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 11,208,839) in view of Brown (U.S. 10,746,360).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the automatic garage door safety system of claim 1. While Lee teaches a control unit (30), it does not teach that the control unit comprises a microprocessor.
Brown teaches a garage door opener with control unit where the control unit comprises a microprocessor (column 16, lines 11-15 describe use of a microprocessor-based system where logical decisions are configured in software).
Lee and Brown are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of garage door openers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Brown and utilize a microprocessor in the garage door safety system. Doing so would utilize a versatile processor capable of handling complex input and output conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of Lee does not teach an audible alarm. However, Lee teaches "the controller 30 may send a notification signal to the alarm system 72 and/or home automation system 70 to alert the occupants of the building in which the space 54 is located so they leave the building, check on the space 54 or otherwise take appropriate action". Dictionary.com defines alarm as "a warning sound" .
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 Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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 Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631