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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petra (US Pub 2005/0224700).
As of claims 1 and 16, Petra, discloses an obstruction avoidance system for an access point of a secured area (see abstract), the system comprising:
an optical rangefinder configured to determine distances of objects from the optical rangefinder (via detector 12 determining distances of objects; see paragraph 0014]), wherein the optical rangefinder is positioned to obtain the distances for the objects at the access point for the secured area (via detector 12 positioned to obtain distances for the objects at the door opening 3; see fig. 1); and
a controller (via a signal processing device of the monitoring system 11; see paragraph [0039]) configured to execute instructions that cause the system to:
obtain, from the optical rangefinder, a distance from the optical rangefinder to a first object at the access point (obtain distance of the obstructing objects; see paragraph [0040]-[0041]);
transmit, to a moveable barrier operator for controlling a moveable barrier configured to manage access to the secured area, at least one of:
the distance; a control instruction for controlling a moveable barrier; or an indication that the distance falls within a target range of distances associated with the secured area (via transmitting a monitoring signal to the control device 10); and
generate, based on transmitting the at least one of the distance, the control instruction, or the indication, an instruction for modifying a state of the moveable barrier (see paragraph [0040], “These comparison results which contain movement information and information about the direction of movement can be linked to the monitoring signals using logic operations, in such a way that the door drive 9 is switched off or reversed whenever obstructing objects which move in the approach areas 14 and 15 have a relatively large movement component in the direction of the door opening 3.”).
As of claim 2, Petra discloses that the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the system further to: determine that the distance falls within the target range of distances associated with the secured area (via determining if the obstructing object is in an absolute safety zone; see paragraph [0041]).
As of claim 3, Petra discloses that the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the system further to: obtain, from the optical rangefinder, a second distance from the optical rangefinder to a second object at the access point; and determine that the second distance falls within a second target range of distances associated with the secured area (in the system of Petra whenever an object enters the monitoring region 14, 15, the detector 12 will determine the distance from the object, so if a second object is detected, the detector will determine if the object is an absolute safety zone or relative safety zone; see paragraph [0041]).
As of claim 4, Petra discloses that the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the system further to: determine, based on the determination that the second distance falls within the second target range of distances, that a current state of the moveable barrier should be maintained (see paragraph [0041], “In the absolute safety zone, no objects at all are tolerated. Changes cause the door to open. The door does not close again until the original state is restored. In the relative safety zone, criteria such as speed of approach and the size of the movement component in the direction of the door opening are taken into account and different control decisions are respectively taken.”).
As of claim 7, Petra discloses that obtaining the distance from the optical rangefinder to the first object at the access point comprises obtaining a plurality of distances from the optical rangefinder of the first object at the access point (via performing successive scanning cycles to obtain a plurality of distances from the detector 12; see paragraph [0014]).
As of claims 10 and 19, Petra discloses that obtaining the distance from the optical rangefinder to the first object at the access point comprises determining that the first object intersects a beam of the optical rangefinder (via determining that the object intersects a beam of the detector 12; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0014]).
As of claim 12, Petra discloses determine a characteristic of the first object, wherein the characteristic comprises at least one of: a color of the first object, a time of day associated with the first object intersecting the beam of the optical rangefinder, or a duration associated with how long the first object intersects the beam of the optical rangefinder (via successively determining the distance of the object from the detector 12; see fig. 7); and
determine, based on the characteristic, that the first object is not expected to intersect the beam of the optical rangefinder (In Petra, the system determines if the object 18 is moving towards to the door or away from the door; see fig. 7; also see paragraphs [0040] and [0055]-[0057]).
As of claim 13, Petra discloses generating the instruction for modifying the state of the moveable barrier is further based on the determination that the first object is not expected to intersect the beam of the optical rangefinder (monitoring signal will be generated if the object 18 moves toward the door; see fig. 7; also see paragraphs [0040] and [0055]-0057]).
As of claim 14, Petra discloses that the optical rangefinder is configured to output the beam parallel to a ground (via outputting a horizontal fan 13 which is parallel to the ground; see fig. 1).
As of claim 15, Petra discloses that the moveable barrier operator comprises a garage door opener (via control device 10 connected to door drive 9), and wherein the moveable barrier comprises a garage door (via door 6; see fig. 1).
As of claim 17, Petra discloses the step of determining that the distance falls within a target range of distances associated with the secured area (via determining if the obstructing object is in an absolute safety zone; see paragraph [0041]);
obtain, from the optical rangefinder, a second distance from the optical rangefinder to a second object at the access point; and determine that the second distance falls within a second target range of distances associated with the secured area (in the system of Petra whenever an object enters the monitoring region 14, 15, the detector 12 will determine the distance from the object, so if a second object is detected, the detector will determine if the object is an absolute safety zone or relative safety zone; see paragraph [0041]); and
determining, based on the determination that the second distance falls within the second target range of distances, that a current state of the moveable barrier should be maintained (see paragraph [0041], “In the absolute safety zone, no objects at all are tolerated. Changes cause the door to open. The door does not close again until the original state is restored. In the relative safety zone, criteria such as speed of approach and the size of the movement component in the direction of the door opening are taken into account and different control decisions are respectively taken”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8, 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petra (US Pub 2005/0224700) in view of Lundberg et al. (US Pub 2012/0154583).
As of claims 8, 9 and 20, Petra discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose determine, based on the plurality of distances, a length of time for which the first object is at the distance from the optical rangefinder and determine that the length of time exceeds a threshold duration; and generate, based on determining that the length of time exceeds a threshold duration, alert data configured to indicate that the length of time exceeds the threshold duration.
Lundberg discloses a method and system for monitoring a door, wherein system determines that obstacle is present for a predetermined period of time before generating an alert data (see paragraphs [0014]- [0015]).
From the teaching of Lundberg it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Lundberg to include the function of waiting a predetermined period of time to reduce false alarm (see paragraph [0015]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petra (US Pub 2005/0224700) in view of Park et al. (US Pub 2023/0204731).
As of claim 11, Petra discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose that the beam of the optical rangefinder has a beam divergence of less than 1 degree.
Park discloses that the beam of the optical rangefinder has a beam divergence of less than 1 degree (see paragraph [0268]).
From the teaching of Park it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Lundberg to use a beam with a divergence of less than 1 degree as taught by Park since it is known that the beam divergence depends on laser beam quality, wavelength and could be less than 1 degree (see paragraph [0268]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobel et al. (US Pub 2023/0278570) discloses a door monitoring system including an optical sensor that may generate sensor signals indicative of a field of view of the optical sensor. The field of view may include at least part of an interior vehicle floor in front of a vehicle door. The system also may include controller that receives the sensor signals and that detects a presence or absence of one or more persons and/or objects within the field of view of the optical sensor. The controller may change a speed at which the vehicle door moves based on the presence or the absence of the persons and/or objects that are detected responsive to detecting the presence or absence of the persons and/or objects.
El Fassi et al. (US Pub 2013/0125468) discloses the use of optical rangefinder to determine obstruction (see paragraph [0022]).
Fitzgibbon et al. (US Pub 2006/0086895) discloses that one or more optical signals (wherein at least some of a plurality of optical signals are at different angles of travel with respect to one another and are directed towards an area comprising a movable barrier-controlled point of passage) create reflections when striking passageway boundaries as correspond to a given movable barrier. Obstacles in the pathway also give rise to reflections. By determining a time-of-flight for such reflections, one can detect a likely presence of an obstacle in such a pathway.
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
