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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 further recites the limitation “a controller” at line 6 of the claim rendering the claim further indefinite since, as recited, it is unclear whether the controller at line 6 is the same or different from the controller at line 4.
Claims 22-28 are also rejected since they depend from claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract process without significantly more.
Independent claim 21 recite(s) the abstract steps of
determining, via the controller and according to the movement of the door, that the attempt to close the door failed
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reasons:
The use of a controller is a well-understood, routine element in the field, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d) for guidance).
detecting, via one or more sensors, a movement of a door indicative of an attempt to close the door
constitutes insignificant pre-solution input activity for the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g) for guidance). See for example Fan et al. (US 2014/320263 A1), para. 0024 showing that such detection is generally well understood.
generating a notification, via a controller
constitutes insignificant post-solution output and display activity based on the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g) for guidance). Note further that the use of a controller is a well-understood, routine element in the field, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d) for guidance).
Claims 22-26 each simply recite further abstract determining steps, which constitute further abstract judicial exceptions similar to that discussed regarding claim 21, and thus do not render the claims statutory.
Claims 27 and 28 are directed to the notifications comprising an audible alarm, email message, instant message, etc. These are considered well-understood, routine elements in the field, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d) for guidance).
Independent claim 29 recite(s) the abstract steps of
determine, according to the movement of the door, whether an attempt to close the door failed to close the door
determine, according to the movement of the door, whether an attempt to close the door failed to close the door
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reasons:
one or more sensors configured to detect a movement of a door
constitutes insignificant pre-solution input activity for the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g) for guidance). See for example Fan et al. (US 2014/320263 A1), para. 0024 showing that such detection is generally well understood.
if the attempt failed to close the door, generate a notification that indicates that the door failed to close
constitutes insignificant post-solution output and display activity based on the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g) for guidance). Note further that such notification is taught as being generally understood in the art in para. 0024 of the Fan et al. Note still further that the use of a controller to perform these functions is a well-understood, routine element in the field, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d) for guidance).
Claims 30-34 each simply recite further abstract determining steps, which constitute further abstract judicial exceptions similar to that discussed regarding claim 21, and thus do not render the claims statutory.
Claims 35 and 36 are directed to the notifications comprising an audible alarm, email message, instant message, etc. These are considered well-understood, routine elements in the field, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d) for guidance).
Independent claim 37 recite(s) the abstract steps of
determine, according to the movement of the door, whether an attempt to close the door failed to close the door
determine, according to the movement of the door, whether an attempt to close the door failed to close the door
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reasons:
one or more sensors configured to detect a movement of a door
constitutes insignificant pre-solution input activity for the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g) for guidance). See for example Fan et al. (US 2014/320263 A1), para. 0024 showing that such detection is generally well understood.
generate a notification that indicates that the door failed to close
constitutes insignificant post-solution output and display activity based on the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g) for guidance). Note further that such notification is taught as being generally understood in the art in para. 0024 of the Fan et al. Note still further that the use of a controller, ports, and a processor to perform these functions are a well-understood, routine element in the field, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d) for guidance).
Claims 38-40 each simply recite further abstract determining steps, which constitute further abstract judicial exceptions similar to that discussed regarding claim 21, and thus do not render the claims statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 25-26, 28-29, 33-34, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fan et al. (US 2014/0320263 A1).
As per claim 21, Fan et al. disclose a method, comprising: detecting, via one or more sensors, a movement of a door indicative of an attempt to close the door (para. 0024: determining whether or not there has been a change in door position); determining, via the controller and according to the movement of the door, that the attempt to close the door failed (para. 0024.) and generating a notification (e.g., text message), via a controller 24, in response to determining that the attempt to close the door failed (para. 0024).
As per claim 25, Fan et al. disclose wherein the method comprises: determining that the attempt to close the door failed according to a distance between a current position of the door and a closed position of the door (paras. 0023-0024: based on detecting position of the door).
As per claim 26, Fan et al. disclose wherein the method comprises: determining that the attempt to close the door has commenced according to a distance between a current position of the door and movement of the door toward a closed position (based on a detecting a change in position - paras. 0023-0024).
As per claim 28, Fan et al. disclose wherein generating the notification comprises sending an electronic message selected from a group of electronic messages comprising an email message, a short message service (SMS) message, an instant message and a push notification (para. 0024).
As per claim 29, Fan et al. disclose a system, comprising: one or more sensors configured to detect a movement of a door; and a controller 24 coupled to the one or more sensors, wherein the controller is configured to: determine, according to the movement of the door, whether an attempt to close the door has commenced and that the attempt to close the door failed to close the door (para. 0024: determining whether or not there has been a change in door position; etc.); and if the attempt failed to close the door, generate a notification that indicates that the door failed to close (e.g., text message, para. 0024).
As per claims 33-34 and 36, see similar claims 25-26 and 28, above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 27, 35, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al.
As per claims 27 and 35, Fan et al. do not teach wherein generating the notification comprises sounding an audible alarm. Official notice is taken that audible alarms are common means for alerting a user to an issue and, as such, would have been an obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply as an alternate means to the text message described at para. 0024 for alerting a user regarding a failure to close the door.
As per claim 37, Fan et al. disclose a controller 24 for a door alarm system having one or more sensors that detect a movement of a door (paras. 0023-0024),; and a processor (para. 0013; etc.) operable to: determine, according to the movement of the door, whether an attempt to close the door has commenced and that the attempt to close the door failed to close the door (para. 0024); and generate a notification that indicates that the door failed to close (para. 0024: text message). Fan et al. do not teach the controller comprising: one or more ports communicatively coupled the one or more sensors. Official notice is taken that connecting sensors to controllers via ports is generally common in the art and would have been a simple expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of being able to receive and act upon the sensed information.
Claim(s) 22-23, 30-31, 28-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. in view of Lhotak (US 5239776) and Park et al. (US 2014/0313328 A1).
As per claim 22, Fan et al. do not teach wherein the method comprises: determining that the attempt to close the door failed according to an angle of the door and a closed position of the door. First, it is noted that rotatable garage doors are generally known in the art, as illustrated by Lhotak (Figs. 1-5; etc.). Further, Park et al. as applied in the original parent application teaches the concept of monitoring the angle of a door (in that case for a refrigerator, but generally applicable to any rotating door) to determine an opening/closing operation of the door (para. 0036-0041). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to monitor the angle of a rotatable door within the context of Fan et al. for the purpose of determining whether the closing operation of Fan et al. has been achieved.
As per claim 23, Fan et al. do not teach wherein the method comprises: determining that the attempt to close the door has commenced according to an angle of the door and a threshold angle of the door. Again, it is noted that rotatable garage doors are generally known in the art, as illustrated by Lhotak (Figs. 1-5; etc.). Further, Park et al. as applied in the original parent application teaches the concept of monitoring the angle of a door (in that case for a refrigerator, but generally applicable to any rotating door) to determine an opening/closing operation of the door according to an angle of the door and a threshold angle of the door (reference angle at Step S109; paras. 0058-0060). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to monitor the angle of a rotatable door relative to a threshold valve within the context of Fan et al. for the purpose of determining whether the closing operation of Fan et al. has been started.
As per claims 30 and 38, see similar claim 22, above.
As per claims 31 and 39, see similar claim 23, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments overcome the contingent limitation interpretation set forth in the previous office action.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments overcome the previously applied rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Note however that Applicant’s amendments to claim 21 have necessitated new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant generally argues that the claims recite physical sensors and controllers and are based on actual movements. However, such features do not in themselves render the claims statutory. As discussed in the rejection, the sensors are commonly known sensors collecting insignificant pre-solution activity, while the controller is ageneric computing device of high generality. A full discussion of why these features do not render the claims statutory, along with reference to the supporting sections of the MPEP, are provided in the rejections. Applicant has not addressed the details of the rejections. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
Applicant provides no substantive arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. Those rejections are maintained above. While Applicant does provide a section in the response regarding claim interpretation, that discussion is directed to aspects of the specification. Accordingly, Applicant appears to be improperly reading details from the specification into the claims. The terms in the claims have been given their common meaning as would have been understood to one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejections are maintained as proper.
Applicant’s properly filed terminal disclaimer overcomes the previously applied double patenting rejections.
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 MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
