DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the initial filing of March 6, 2025.
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 Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites an “apparatus” comprising an operator, a receiver, and a transmitter. However, the specification only refers to a system comprising those elements, as seen in paragraphs [0007] and [0045] of the filed specification. Therefore, the applicant does not provide support for the claimed subject matter in such a way as to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention.
For purposes of examination, claims 1-7 are interpreted as a system comprising the claimed elements, as opposed to a single apparatus.
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 8-9, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsui et al. (Tsui; US PG Pub #2018/0216389).
As to claim 8, Tsui teaches a method of pairing a receiver to a transmitter (Paragraph [0030] teaches a process for maintaining connection quality; Paragraph [0062] teaches the synchronization process for communication between a garage door opener’s main control unit and a master safety sensor), comprising:
powering on the receiver, wherein upon the powering on of the receiver, the receiver enters a receiver pairing state for up to a first predetermined amount of time over a plurality of channels (Paragraph [0040] teaches a main control unit with a receiver; Paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] teach synchronizing communication channels, ensuring good connection quality in a process that only takes approximately 5ms and is repeated approximately every second, and that the master is powered on at all times); and
powering on the transmitter and initiating a transmitter pairing state of the transmitter, wherein upon the initiating of the transmitter pairing state, the transmitter enters a transmitter pairing state for up to a second predetermined amount of time (Paragraph [0051] teaches a master sensor unit with a radio transmitter; Paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] teach synchronizing communication channels, ensuring good connection quality in a process that only takes approximately 5ms and is repeated approximately every second, and a power management circuit periodically activating the master safety sensor unit, specifically the wireless circuitry; Paragraphs [0043] and [0052] teach returning the safety sensor to sleep mode most of the time and only waking periodically), wherein the transmitter and the receiver are paired within the first predetermined amount of time over a selected channel of the plurality of channels based upon communication interference detected on one or more channels, wherein the receiver is further configured to switch to the selected channel from a previously selected channel of the plurality of channels after a new channel detection phase detects that the selected channel and the communication interference is detected on the previously selected channel (Paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] teach synchronizing communication channels and ensuring good connection quality by switching channels to a channel with insignificant signal interference).
As to claim 9, depending from the method of claim 8, Tsui teaches wherein the second predetermined amount of time being different than the first predetermined amount of time (Paragraph [0056] teaches that the main control unit is powered by main power and its wireless communication circuitry is maintained in an on state at all times or the main control unit can synchronize its internal clock with the master safety sensor unit and wait for a radio signal at or around the time when wireless circuitry is scheduled to send an initiation signal whereas the safety sensor is only activated once every second to communicate with the main control unit).
As to claim 14, depending from the method of claim 8, Tsui teaches the method further comprising:
verifying that the receiver and the transmitter have been successfully paired, wherein upon successful pairing the transmitter exits the pairing state and the receiver exits the pairing state, and the transmitter initiates communication with the receiver (Paragraph [0057] teaches that when the main control unit and the master safety sensor are synchronized to a quiet channel, the garage door opener and master safety sensor unit communicate at the desired channel and verification starts again the next second; Paragraph [0056] teaches activating the master safety sensor unit periodically to send a radio signal to the main control unit to initiate the verification process).
As to claim 15, depending from the method of claim 8, Tsui teaches wherein the communication interference is detected by the receiver (Paragraph [0062] teaches the main control unit verifies that it is in sync with the master safety sensor).
As to claim 16, Tsui teaches a method of pairing a receiver to a transmitter (Paragraph [0030] teaches a process for maintaining connection quality; Paragraph [0062] teaches the synchronization process for communication between a garage door opener’s main control unit and a master safety sensor), comprising:
initiating a receiver pairing state of the receiver, wherein upon the initiating the receiver pairing state, the receiver enters a receiver pairing state for up to a predetermined amount of time over a plurality of channels (Paragraph [0040] teaches a main control unit with a receiver; Paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] teach synchronizing communication channels, ensuring good connection quality in a process that only takes approximately 5ms and is repeated approximately every second); and
initiating a transmitter pairing state of the transmitter, wherein upon the initiating the transmitter pairing state, the transmitter enters a transmitter pairing state for up to the predetermined amount of time (Paragraph [0051] teaches a master sensor unit with a radio transmitter; Paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] teach synchronizing communication channels, ensuring good connection quality in a process that only takes approximately 5ms and is repeated approximately every second, and a power management circuit periodically activating the master safety sensor unit, specifically the wireless circuitry; Paragraphs [0043] and [0052] teach returning the safety sensor to sleep mode most of the time and only waking periodically), wherein the transmitter and the receiver are paired within the predetermined amount of time over a selected channel of the plurality of channels based upon communication interference detected on one or more channels, wherein the receiver is further configured to switch to the selected channel from a previously selected channel of the plurality of channels after a new channel detection phase detects that the selected channel and the communication interference is detected on the previously selected channel (Paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] teach synchronizing communication channels and ensuring good connection quality by switching channels to a channel with insignificant signal interference).
As to claim 18, depending from the method of claim 16, Tsui teaches the method further comprising:
verifying that the receiver and the transmitter have been successfully paired, wherein upon successful pairing the transmitter exits the transmitter pairing state and the receiver exits the receiver pairing state, and the transmitter initiates communication with the receiver (Paragraph [0057] teaches that when the main control unit and the master safety sensor are synchronized to a quiet channel, the garage door opener and master safety sensor unit communicate at the desired channel and verification starts again the next second; Paragraph [0056] teaches activating the master safety sensor unit periodically to send a radio signal to the main control unit to initiate the verification process).
As to claim 19, depending from the method of claim 16, Tsui teaches wherein the detection of the communication interference comprises a predetermined amount of communication retries detected on the previously selected channel (Paragraph [0062] teaches detecting interference by attempting to synchronize the main control unit with the master safety sensor when the quality of communication fails to meet preset criteria a preset number of times).
As to claim 20, depending from the method of claim 16, Tsui teaches wherein the communication interference is detected by the receiver (Paragraph [0062] teaches the main control unit verifies that it is in sync with the master safety sensor).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui et al. (Tsui; US PG Pub #2018/0216389) in view of Sikora et al. (Sikora; US PG Pub #2008/0315988).
As to claim 1, Tsui teaches an apparatus (Paragraph [0038] teaches a garage door opener system), comprising:
an operator to control movement of a curtain (Paragraph [0048] teaches a garage door opener control system including a motor control unit to drive the opening and closing of the door);
a receiver communicatively coupled to the operator and configured to initiate a receiver pairing state for up to a predetermined amount of time over a plurality of channels (Paragraph [0040] teaches a main control unit with a receiver; Paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] teach synchronizing communication channels and ensuring good connection quality in a process that only takes approximately 5ms and is repeated approximately every second); and
a transmitter configured to initiate a transmitter pairing state for up to a predetermined amount of time (Paragraph [0051] teaches a master sensor unit with a radio transmitter; Paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] teach synchronizing communication channels and ensuring good connection quality in a process that only takes approximately 5ms and is repeated approximately every second), wherein the receiver and the transmitter are paired within the predetermined amount of time over a selected channel of the plurality of channels based upon communication interference detected on one or more channels, wherein the receiver is further configured to switch to the selected channel from a previously selected channel of the plurality of channels after a new channel detection phase detects that the selected channel and the communication interference is detected on the previously selected channel (Paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] teach synchronizing communication channels and ensuring good connection quality by switching channels to a channel with insignificant signal interference).
Tsui does not explicitly teach the transmitter is coupled to the curtain.
In the field of door systems, Sikora teaches the transmitter is coupled to the curtain (Figure 1 shows mobile unit 4 on door 1; Paragraph [0068] teaches a mobile unit mounted on the door). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmitter of Tsui with the mobile unit of Sikora because it is important that the radio communication operates reliably in coexistence with other radio services that use the same frequency band (Paragraph [0008]) while allowing known sensors mounted on a movable door that detect a collision of the door with an obstruction to operate (Paragraph [0062]).
As to claim 2, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Tsui teaches wherein the detection of the communication interference comprises a predetermined amount of communication retries detected on the previously selected channel (Paragraph [0062] teaches detecting interference by attempting to synchronize the main control unit with the master safety sensor when the quality of communication fails to meet preset criteria a preset number of times).
As to claim 6, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Tsui teaches wherein the transmitter comprises a sensor (Paragraph [0051] teaches a master sensor unit with a radio transmitter).
As to claim 7, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Tsui teaches wherein the communication interference is detected by the receiver (Paragraph [0062] teaches the main control unit verifies that it is in sync with the master safety sensor).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui et al. (Tsui; US PG Pub #2018/0216389) in view of Sikora et al. (Sikora; US PG Pub #2008/0315988) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hall et al. (Hall; US PG Pub #2018/0309619).
As to claim 3, depending from the apparatus of claim 1, Tsui teaches wherein the receiver is further configured to receive a plurality of first communications associated with communication interference on the previously selected channel and a plurality of second communications associated with communication interference on the selected channel (Paragraph [0057] teaches determining that a current channel has interference based on communication quality and determining if a new channel has good connection quality). Although Tsui teaches attempting synchronization for a pre-selected number of trials (Paragraph [0062]), Tsui does not explicitly teach communication retries over a specific channel.
In the field of adaptive channel communication, Hall teaches communication retries over a specific channel (Paragraph [0107] teaches counting successive retry attempts to trigger a change in communication channel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication error detection of Tsui with successive retry attempts as in Hall because Hall provides adequate and reliable communication services for groups of sensed and controlled remote device at intermediate ranges (Paragraph [0009]).
As to claim 4, depending from the apparatus of claim 3, Tsui teaches wherein the receiver is configured to compare the plurality of first communications on the previously selected channel with the plurality of second communications on the selected channel to detect the communication interference on the previously selected channel (Paragraph [0057] teaches comparing communication quality with pre-set criteria to determine a current channel has signal interference and using this same method with other channels until a quiet channel is found). Tsui does not explicitly teach communication retries over a specific channel.
In the field of adaptive channel communication, Hall teaches communication retries over a specific channel (Paragraph [0107] teaches counting successive retry attempts to trigger a change in communication channel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication error detection of Tsui with successive retry attempts as in Hall because Hall provides adequate and reliable communication services for groups of sensed and controlled remote device at intermediate ranges (Paragraph [0009]).
As to claim 5, depending from the apparatus of claim 4, Tsui teaches wherein the receiver and the transmitter determine the selected channel based on the plurality of first communications compared to the plurality of second communications (Paragraph [0057] teaches comparing communication quality with pre-set criteria to determine a current channel has signal interference and using this same method with other channels until a quiet channel is found). Tsui does not explicitly teach communication retries over a specific channel.
In the field of adaptive channel communication, Hall teaches communication retries over a specific channel (Paragraph [0107] teaches counting successive retry attempts to trigger a change in communication channel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication error detection of Tsui with successive retry attempts as in Hall because Hall provides adequate and reliable communication services for groups of sensed and controlled remote device at intermediate ranges (Paragraph [0009]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui et al. (Tsui; US PG Pub #2018/0216389), as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Finley et al. (Finley; US PG Pub #2006/0012468).
As to claim 10, depending from the method of claim 8, Tsui does not explicitly teach wherein the first predetermined amount of time is between approximately 2 seconds to approximately 7 seconds.
In the field of wireless communication, Finley teaches wherein the first predetermined amount of time is between approximately 2 seconds to approximately 7 seconds (Paragraphs [0087]-[0088] teach 5 seconds to establish a Bluetooth connection before a device enters sleep mode). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsui with the time of Finley because this allows the sleep mode to be activated to draw a minimal amount of current (Paragraph [0087]).
As to claim 11, depending from the method of claim 8, Tsui does not explicitly teach wherein the first predetermined amount of time is approximately 5 seconds.
In the field of wireless communication, Finley teaches wherein the first predetermined amount of time is approximately 5 seconds (Paragraphs [0087]-[0088] teach 5 seconds to establish a Bluetooth connection before a device enters sleep mode). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Tsui with the time of Finley because this allows the sleep mode to be activated to draw a minimal amount of current (Paragraph [0087]).
Claims 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui et al. (Tsui; US PG Pub #2018/0216389), as applied to claims 8 and 16 above, further in view of Watson et al. (Watson; US PG Pub #2016/0360350).
As to claim 12, depending from the method of claim 8, Tsui does not explicitly teach wherein the second predetermined amount of time is between approximately 20 seconds to approximately 40 seconds.
In the field of wireless device communication, Watson teaches wherein the second predetermined amount of time is between approximately 20 seconds to approximately 40 seconds (Paragraph [0026] teaches keeping a device in a pairing mode until it times out when it doesn’t pair with a companion communication device within a fixed period, such as 30 seconds). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Tsui with the fixed time period of Watson because this yields the predictable result of ensuring that enough time is permitted for communication to take place while still allowing the device of Tsui to be in a reduced power mode when not pairing to conserve energy.
As to claim 13, depending from the method of claim 8, Tsui does not explicitly teach wherein the second predetermined amount of time is approximately 30 seconds.
In the field of wireless device communication, Watson teaches wherein the second predetermined amount of time is approximately 30 seconds (Paragraph [0026] teaches keeping a device in a pairing mode until it times out when it doesn’t pair with a companion communication device within a fixed period, such as 30 seconds). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Tsui with the fixed time period of Watson because this yields the predictable result of ensuring that enough time is permitted for communication to take place while still allowing the device of Tsui to be in a reduced power mode when not pairing to conserve energy.
As to claim 17, depending from the method of claim 16, Tsui does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined amount of time is approximately 30 seconds.
In the field of wireless device communication, Watson teaches wherein the predetermined amount of time is approximately 30 seconds (Paragraph [0026] teaches keeping a device in a pairing mode until it times out when it doesn’t pair with a companion communication device within a fixed period, such as 30 seconds). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Tsui with the fixed time period of Watson because this yields the predictable result of ensuring that enough time is permitted for communication to take place while still allowing the device of Tsui to be in a reduced power mode when not pairing to conserve energy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Anderson et al. (US PG Pub #2005/0017663) teach door systems using wireless links for sending information regarding the detection of a hazard condition or the operation status of the entire wireless system and hazard detection components (Paragraph [0002]) by periodically monitoring for communication interference (Paragraph [0007]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights