DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The following is a final office action in response to the amendments filed 03/23/2026. Amendments received on 03/23/2026 have been entered. Accordingly claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-55 of U.S. Patent No. 9,122,254. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Present Application (18/891,719) Claim 2:
A method comprising:
sending communication signals from a communication module via a plurality of communication protocols to a first pre-installed barrier operator and a second pre-installed barrier operator;
receiving at the communication module a communication indicating a response from the first pre-installed barrier operator that at least one of the plurality of communication protocols is a communication protocol used by the first pre-installed barrier operator; receiving at the communication module a communication indicating a response from the second pre-installed barrier operator that at least one of the plurality of communication protocols is a communication protocol used by the second pre-installed barrier operator; configuring the communication module to operate according to a first communication protocol that effected the response from the first pre-installed barrier operator when communicating with the first pre-installed barrier operator; configuring the communication module to operate according to a second communication protocol that effected the response from the second pre-installed barrier operator when communicating with the second pre-installed barrier operator; sending from the communication module a communication to the first pre-installed barrier operator using the first communication protocol; and sending from the communication module a communication to the second pre-installed barrier operator using the second communication protocol;
receiving at the communication module information including an open/close command from a peripheral device; determining an action or setting change for the first or second pre-installed barrier operator based on the information from the peripheral device; sending from the communication module an open/close signal according to the communication protocol to the first or second pre-installed barrier operator, the open/close signal configured to effect movement of a barrier by the first or second pre-installed barrier operator between an open and closed position in response to receipt of the open/close command from the peripheral device.
Conflicting Patent (9,122,254) Claim 13:
An apparatus comprising: a housing containing at least:
a barrier operator communication module configured to be able to communicate with a plurality of barrier operator types that use different communication protocols for receiving communications by sending communication signals by wireless or wired communication protocols; control circuitry configured to use the barrier operator communication module to communicate with any of the plurality of barrier operator types, the control circuitry configured to use the barrier operator communication module to communicate to at least one separate pre-installed barrier operator to control operation of at least one feature of the at least one pre-installed barrier operator; an input/output module operatively in communication with the control circuitry, the input/output module configured to receive communications from at least one peripheral device configured to provide information regarding an operation status of the separate pre-installed barrier operator, and to receive communications from at least one second peripheral device, including at least one open/close command, configured to effect operation of the pre-installed barrier operator; wherein the control circuitry is configured to: effect sending communication signals from the barrier operator communication module via a plurality of communication protocols to the pre-installed barrier operator; receive a communication indicating a response from the pre-installed barrier operator that at least one of the plurality of communication protocols is a communication protocol used by the pre-installed barrier operator; and configure the barrier operator communication module to operate according to a communication protocol that effected the response from the pre-installed barrier operator; and the control circuitry configured to, in response to receiving the open/close command from the at least one second peripheral device, effect sending an open/close signal to the pre-installed barrier operator to effect a movement of a barrier operated by the separate pre-installed barrier operator between an open and closed position.
Comments
With regards to limitation of configuring the communication module to control a second pre-installed barrier operator, Patented claim discloses that the communication module is a universal remote control that can control plurality of appliances/barriers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that if the communication module is used to control a second pre-installed barrier operator, the communication module will transmit signals using a plurality of communication protocols to the second pre-installed barrier operator in the same manner as claimed for the first pre-installed barrier operator and the results would have been predictable and resulted in enabling the user to configure the communication module to control a second pre-installed barrier operators.
Present Application 18/891719
Conflicting Patent (9,122.254)
2, 19
1
3, 20
1
5, 13
1
6, 14
1
7, 15
4
8, 16
1
9, 17
1
10, 18
1
11
15
Claim 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 9,141,099 in the same manner as disclosed able with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,122,254.
Claim 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,376,851 in the same manner as disclosed able with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,122,254.
Claim 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,644,416 in the same manner as disclosed able with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,122,254.
Claim 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,896,877 in the same manner as disclosed able with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,122,254.
Claim 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,138,671 in the same manner as disclosed able with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,122,254.
Claim 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,597,928 in the same manner as disclosed able with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,122,254.
Claim 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,801,247 in the same manner as disclosed able with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,122,254.
Claim 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-36 of U.S. Patent No. 11,187,026 in the same manner as disclosed able with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,122,254.
Claim 1-3, 5-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,123,248 in the same manner as disclosed able with respect to U.S. Patent No. 9,122,254.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-3, 5-6, 11, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chuey (US Pub 2006/0279399) in view of Laird (US Pub 2010/0085145).
As of claim 1, Chuey discloses a method comprising:
sending communication signals from a communication module (via remote control 42) via a plurality of communication protocols to a first pre-installed barrier operator (via remote control 42 transmitting activation signals via a plurality of activation schemes to a garage door opener 26; see paragraph [0009]);
receiving at the communication module a communication indicating a response from the first pre-installed barrier operator that at least one of the plurality of communication protocols is a communication protocol used by the first pre-installed barrier operator (a sensor signal indicating appliance activation is transmitted from the sensor to the remote control in response to the appliance detecting appliance activation; see paragraph [0009])
configuring the communication module to operate according to a first communication protocol that effected the response from the first pre-installed barrier operator when communicating with the first pre-installed barrier operator (see paragraph [0009], “The remote control determines, based on the sensor signal, which of the plurality of RF fixed code and rolling code activation schemes resulted in the remote control transmitting an activation signal in the sequence that activated the appliance. Data representing the determined activation scheme is associated with an activation input of the remote control”);
sending from the communication module a communication to the first pre-installed barrier operator using the first communication protocol (see paragraph [0015], “In the operate mode, the controller generates transmitter control signals based on the stored data in response to receiving an activation input signal. The transmitter transmits activation signals based on the transmitter control signals”).
With regards to limitation of configuring the communication module to control a second pre-installed barrier operator, Chuey discloses that the remote control 42 is a universal remote control that can control plurality of appliances/barriers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that if the remote is used to control a second pre-installed barrier operators (second garage door opener 26) the remote control 42 will transmit activation signals via a plurality of activation schemes to the second garage door opener in the same manner as disclosed for the first garage door 26 (see paragraph [0033]) and the results would have been predictable and resulted in enabling the user to configure the remote to control a second pre-installed barrier operators.
Chuey does not explicitly disclose receiving at the communication module information including an open/close command from a peripheral device; determining an action or setting change for the first or second pre-installed barrier operator based on the information from the peripheral device; sending from the communication module an open/close signal according to the communication protocol to the first or second pre-installed barrier operator, the open/close signal configured to effect movement of a barrier by the first or second pre-installed barrier operator between an open and closed position in response to receipt of the open/close command from the peripheral device.
Laird discloses a system and method for control of multiple barrier operators, wherien a communication module (via system controller 410; see fig. 5) receives information including open/close command from a peripheral device (via switch module 539; see paragraph [0040]). Laird discloses that the system controller 410 determines an action (open/close) based on the information from the switch 539 and send an open/close command to a particular barrier operator based on the information from the switch 539. For example, pressing the first switch 539a (see fig. 6) when the barrier or garage door is down causes the barrier operator head unit 12 to open (see paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
From the teaching of Laird, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Chuey to include the function of receiving open/close command from a peripheral device as taught by Laird in order to provide different mechanism to users to control barrier operators.
As of claim 11, Chuey discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, Chuey further discloses that a barrier operator enhancement apparatus (remote control 42) is deployable in a garage to receive a vehicle, the barrier operator enhancement apparatus remaining in the garage when the vehicle is not present (Chuey discloses that the remote control 42 is a wall mounted remote control; see paragraph [0033]).
As of claims 2 and 19, Chuey discloses that the first communication protocol effects operation of a first plurality of operations (once the remote control is programmed with one of the rolling or fixed code scheme to control a first garage door opener 26, one of the pushbutton on the remote will be used to effect operation of opening/closing the first garage door opener 26) and wherein the second communication protocol effects operation of a second plurality of operations (once the remote control is programmed with one of the rolling or fixed code scheme to control a second garage door opener 26, one of the pushbutton on the remote will be used to effect operation of opening/closing the second garage door opener 26) that are not all the same as the first plurality of operations (Based on the specification paragraphs ([0021]-[0022]) controlling operations of the barrier operators depend upon the capabilities of the barrier operators and once programmed the communication module can control operations of the barrier that are supported by the barrier. Same principle applies in Chuey since the remote is controlling different barrier operators, if they offer different operations the remote will use first communication protocol to effect operation of the first barrier operator and use the second communication protocol to effect operation of the second barrier operator).
As of claims 3 and 20, Chuey discloses that the second communication protocol is different than the first communication protocol (via using plurality of radio frequency fixed code and rolling code activation schemes; see paragraph [0009]).
As of claims 5 and 13, Laird discloses that the configuring the communication module to operate according to a communication protocol is performed utilizing information from the peripheral device (via system controller 410 determining which barrier operator to operate utilizing information from the switch 539).
As of claims 6 and 14, Laird discloses that the information describes which of the first or second pre-installed barrier operators is to be opened/closed (see paragraph [0046], “For example, pressing the first switch 539a when the barrier or garage door is down causes the barrier operator head unit 12 to lift the door. Conversely, pressing the first switch 539a when the barrier is up, causes the operator head unit 12 to lower the door”).
Claim 7-10 and 15-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chuey (US Pub 2006/0279399) in view of Laird (US Pub 2010/0085145) and further in view of Gregori (US Pub 2005/0012631).
As of claims 7 and 15, combination of Chuey and Laird discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 4 above, however it does not explicitly disclose receiving a signal from a position sensor indicating movement of the barrier comprises receiving the signal from one or more of the group consisting of a tilt sensor, a limit switch, and combinations thereof.
Gregori discloses the concept that barrier monitoring systems have been known in the art to monitor position of a barrier by way of a tilt sensor (see paragraphs [0029-0031]).
From the teaching of Gregori it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of Chuey to use a tilt sensor as taught by Gregori in order to monitor position of the barrier.
As of claims 8 and 16, Gregori discloses that the communication module (network interface 36; see fig. 3) receives information from the first pre-installed barrier operator regarding a status of the first pre-installed barrier operator (see paragraph [0021] “The network interface 36 receives signals from the garage door operator which allow the network interface 36 to determine if the garage door 12 is open, closed, stopped in the middle of travel, opening or closing”). With regards to the limitation of no status information is received by the communication module from the second pre-installed barrier operator, as disclosed by Gregori a barrier is fitted with a monitor sensor 800 to receive the status of the barrier, in an environment where multiple barrier operators are controlled (as disclosed by Laird or Chuey) if a barrier is not fitted with the status monitor the communication module will not receive status from such barrier.
As of claims 9 and 17, Gregori discloses that the status comprises a barrier position, a force setting, a light setting, or any combination thereof (see paragraph [0021] “The network interface 36 receives signals from the garage door operator which allow the network interface 36 to determine if the garage door 12 is open, closed, stopped in the middle of travel, opening or closing”).
As of claims 10 and 18, Gregori discloses that the communication module is configured to send signals to the first pre-installed barrier operator in response to the received information regarding the status of the first pre-installed barrier operator (see paragraph [0028], “a user can log onto the network interface 36 and determine that the door is open at a time when it should be closed. The authorized user can then transmit a close command to the network interface via the network 102. Micro-controller 304 will respond to the close command from network 102 by directing barrier movement controller 300 to close the garage door”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rodriguez et al. (US 8,330,572) discloses that after a transmitter is learned with each of a plurality of barrier operators, a command button on the transmitter is enabled to simultaneously invoke at least one function at each of the plurality of barrier operators.
Keller, JR. (US Pub 2008/0303706) discloses that a user places a movable barrier operator remote control transmitter into a learning mode of operation. During this learning mode of operation, the movable barrier operator remote control transmitter then self-increments through test transmissions of a series of different pre-provisioned remote control signal protocols. When the movable barrier operator eventually displays a positive reaction to a given test transmission, the user halts the process and the movable barrier operator remote control transmitter thereafter knows to use that particular corresponding remote control signal protocol (see paragraph [0005]).
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 NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689