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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: linkage 18. See also below specification objection.
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0024], [0030], and [0033] contain contradictory information regarding which structures are shown with reference numerals 14, 16, and 18 (not shown as noted in the above drawing objection). Paragraph [0033] describing the door frame 14 and the linkage 16 matches what is shown in figure 2 (the only figure with the reference numerals in question. Paragraph [0024] describes door frame 16 and linkage 18, with the linkage recited again in paragraph [0030]. It appears that paragraphs [0024] and [0030] should be corrected to match paragraph [0033] and the figures with door frame 14 and linkage 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-11, 16, and 17 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 7-11, 16, and 17 all recite “a control signal”. The control signal was previously recited in claims 2 (from which 7-11 depend via claim 6) and 15 (from which 16 and 17 depend) and as such the proper antecedent is “the control signal”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 6891479 to Eccleston (hereinafter Eccleston) in view of US patent 6430871 to Hebda (hereinafter Hebda).
Regarding claim 1, the remotely operated door opening system is shown in Eccleston in figures 1-4 with
a housing unit (21) having a front surface, a back surface, a top surface, a bottom surface, and a pair of side surfaces;
a control hub (with controller 20) coupled to or disposed within the housing unit (21), the control hub having a microprocessor (further taught column 7 lines 9-13) or controller (20), memory (further taught column 7 lines 9-13), and a wireless receiver (further taught column 7 lines 41-55);
a power source (44) coupled to or disposed within the housing unit (21), the power source (44) electrically coupled to the control hub;
a motor (14) coupled to and disposed within the housing unit (21), the motor (14) electrically coupled to the control hub and electrically coupled to the power source (44);
a clutch system (17) disposed within the housing unit (21) and coupled to the motor (14) at a first end (lower end figure 3), and the top surface at a second end(upper end figure 3); and
a rotary shaft (27,30) disposed within the clutch system (17) configured to be driven by the motor (14).
However, Eccleston appears to show the motor directly coupled to the power source rather than couple through the control hub.
A control hub power relay is shown in Hebda in figures 1-7 with door opening system (16) having a motor (40) coupled to a power source (76) through (figure 7) a control hub (70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Eccleston with the control hub power relay of Hebda because the relay of power through the control hub rather than directly allows for more finely controller power supply (i.e. can be turned on and off).
Regarding claim 2, the control hub (with 20) is configured to receive a control signal (from remote control RC) through the wireless receiver and, when provided with the control power relay of Hebda, relay electricity from the power source (44) to the motor (14) thereby driving the rotary shaft (27,30) in Eccleston.
Regarding claim 3, the housing unit (21) is mounted to a door (12) and an articulating linkage member (16) is coupled at a first end (indirectly) to the rotary shaft (27,30) and at a second end to a door frame (11) in Eccleston.
Regarding claim 6, the wireless receiver is configured to receive the control signal from an external computing device (RC) utilizing a matching wireless transmission protocol in Eccleston.
Regarding claim 15, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus of claims 1-3 and 6.
Regarding claim 7, the external computing device (RC) comprises a push button fob (button figure 1) and wireless transmitter (further taught column 7 lines 41-55) wherein upon actuation of the button the transmitter sends the control signal to the control hub (with 20) in Eccleston.
Regarding claim 14, the clutch system (17) is a slip clutch system configured to decouple the rotary shaft from the motor (14) in Eccleston.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eccleston and Hebda as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 14, and 15 above, and further in view of US patent 6125505 to Jensen (hereinafter Jensen) and US patent 3188682 to Check (hereinafter Check).
Regarding claim 4, the mounting plate (23) is integral with the housing (21) in Eccleston.
A separate mounting plate is shown in Jensen in figures 1-7 with mounting plate (50) configured to be mounted to a door and housing (10) configured to mount to the plate (50) the plate having vertical rails (to the interior of vertical feature 60 and 54) and a horizontal rail (upper horizontal portion figure 2). Though not shown, the housing (10) must have vertical protrusions (i.e. extending members) to mate with the vertical rails on the plate. Examiner notes the features being integral with the housing would form an integral mounting bracket.
While Jensen does not show a security member on the plate, a security member is shown in Check in figures 1-17 where mounting plate (13) includes a security feature (hanging portion with 18) mating with a horizontal protrusion (with 17) on a mounting bracket (integral with housing 10, portion mating with plate 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Eccleston, having the control hub power relay of Hebda, with the separate mounting plate of Jensen and security feature of Check because the separate mounting plate allows for a more hidden mounting connection and the security feature allows for improve connection in a vertical direction (i.e. hanging).
Claim(s) 5, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eccleston and Hebda as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 14, and 15 above, and further in view of CA 2844947 to Huynh (hereinafter Huynh).
Regarding claim 5, the wireless receiver/transmitter is described as “[a]ny type of transmission, such as, for example, radio, infrared or audio waves” in column 7 lines 49-51.
While such a broad description could be considered to encompass specific radio types such as those of claim 5, Bluetooth radio is shown in Huynh in figures 1a-9 where door opening system (20) includes control hub (with controller 110) communicating wirelessly via Bluetooth (paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Eccleston, having the control hub power relay of Hebda, with the Bluetooth of Huynh because Bluetooth was a widely known and easy to use wireless communication protocol.
Regarding claim 9, the external computing device (RC) is a push button fob in Eccleston.
A smart phone/tablet computing device and a vocal command control are shown in Huynh in figures 1a-9 where door opening system (20) includes a control hub (20) that can receive control signals from a smart phone/tablet (paragraph [0055]) or a voice actuation (paragraph [0054]). While the smart phone/table and voice command are taught separately, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably combine the teaching and perform the voice command control using the smart phone/tablet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Eccleston, having the control hub power relay of Hebda, with the smart phone/tablet and voice command control of Huynh because smart phone/tablet control provide an easy remote control without needing a separate remote (i.e. without a separate fob, using the phone/tablet of the user instead) and voice control provides an easy way to activate the system.
Regarding claim 16, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus of claim 9.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eccleston and Hebda as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 14, and 15 above, and further in view of Huynh and Official Notice.
Regarding claim 8, the external computing device (RC) is a push button fob in Eccleston.
A smart phone/tablet computing device is shown in Huynh in figures 1a-9 where door opening system (20) includes a control hub (20) that can receive control signals from a smart phone/tablet (paragraph [0055]).
Huynh is silent as to how commands are input into the smart phone/tablet, however, examiner takes Official Notice the GUI push buttons were old and well known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Eccleston, having the control hub power relay of Hebda, with the smart phone/tablet and voice command control of Huynh using the known GUI push button because smart phone/tablet control provide an easy remote control without needing a separate remote (i.e. without a separate fob, using the phone/tablet of the user instead) and GUI push buttons provided a simple and easy to use interface.
Regarding claim 17, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus of claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eccleston and Hebda as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 14, and 15 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 10, Eccleston is silent as to whether the control signals are authenticated.
Examiner takes Official Notice that signal authentication was old and well known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Eccleston, having the control hub power relay of Hebda, with the known signal authentication because signal authentication provided the known benefit of limiting signals that activate a device (in the present case a door opening system) to those that are authorized to do so and when provided to Eccleston would allow access through the door only to those permitted to have access.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eccleston, Hebda, and Official Notice as applied to claims 10 above, and further in view of Huynh.
Regarding claim 11, Eccleston does not teach voice control.
A vocal command control are shown in Huynh in figures 1a-9 where door opening system (20) includes a control hub (20) that can receive control signals from a voice actuation sensor (paragraph [0054]). While Huynh does not describe the voice sensor as including a microphone and software interpreting the command examiner maintains these features are part of the sensor and controller, i.e. the voice sensor must include a microphone to receive the audio and the control hub must include a means to interpret the voice command.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Eccleston, having the control hub power relay of Hebda and the known signal authentication, with the voice command control of Huynh because voice control provides an easy and hands free (see paragraph [0054]) way to activate the system.
Regarding claim 12, the signal authentication would include authenticating the voice signal (i.e. authenticating only some signals makes for an unsecure system).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eccleston and Hebda as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 7, 14, and 15 above, and further in view of US patent 11661786 to Langenberg (hereinafter Langenberg).
Regarding claim 13, Eccleston is silent as to the wattage used in operation.
A low power system is shown in Langenberg in figures 1- with door opening system 70 controlling the power (step 736) to a motor (120) to a low amount (below 48 Watts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Eccleston, having the control hub power relay of Hebda, with the low power control of Langenberg because the low power control allows for a lower power consumption.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eccleston, Hebda, Jensen, and Check.
Regarding claim 18, the remotely operated door opening system is shown in Eccleston in figures 1-4 with
a housing unit (21) having a front surface, a back surface, a top surface, a bottom surface, and a pair of side surfaces;
a control hub (with controller 20) coupled to or disposed within the housing unit (21), the control hub having a microprocessor (further taught column 7 lines 9-13) or controller (20), memory (further taught column 7 lines 9-13), and a wireless receiver (further taught column 7 lines 41-55);
a power source (44) coupled to or disposed within the housing unit (21), the power source (44) electrically coupled to the control hub;
a motor (14) coupled to and disposed within the housing unit (21), the motor (14) electrically coupled to the control hub and electrically coupled to the power source (44);
a clutch system (17) disposed within the housing unit (21) and coupled to the motor (14) at a first end (lower end figure 3), and the top surface at a second end(upper end figure 3); and
a rotary shaft (27,30) disposed within the clutch system (17) configured to be driven by the motor (14).
However, Eccleston appears to show the motor directly coupled to the power source rather than couple through the control hub and the mounting plate (23) is integral with the housing (21).
A control hub power relay is shown in Hebda in figures 1-7 with door opening system (16) having a motor (40) coupled to a power source (76) through (figure 7) a control hub (70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Eccleston with the control hub power relay of Hebda because the relay of power through the control hub rather than directly allows for more finely controller power supply (i.e. can be turned on and off).
A separate mounting plate is shown in Jensen in figures 1-7 with mounting plate (50) configured to be mounted to a door and housing (10) configured to mount to the plate (50) the plate having vertical rails (to the interior of vertical feature 60 and 54) and a horizontal rail (upper horizontal portion figure 2). Though not shown, the housing (10) must have vertical protrusions (i.e. extending members) to mate with the vertical rails on the plate. Examiner notes the features being integral with the housing would form an integral mounting bracket.
While Jensen does not show a security member on the plate, a security member is shown in Check in figures 1-17 where mounting plate (13) includes a security feature (hanging portion with 18) mating with a horizontal protrusion (with 17) on a mounting bracket (integral with housing 10, portion mating with plate 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Eccleston, having the control hub power relay of Hebda, with the separate mounting plate of Jensen and security feature of Check because the separate mounting plate allows for a more hidden mounting connection and the security feature allows for improve connection in a vertical direction (i.e. hanging).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eccleston, Hebda, Jensen, and Check as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Huynh and Official Notice.
Regarding claim 19, the external computing device (RC) is a push button fob in Eccleston.
A smart phone/tablet computing device is shown in Huynh in figures 1a-9 where door opening system (20) includes a control hub (20) that can receive control signals from a smart phone/tablet (paragraph [0055]).
Huynh is silent as to how commands are input into the smart phone/tablet, however, examiner takes Official Notice the GUI push buttons were old and well known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Eccleston, having the control hub power relay of Hebda, separate mounting plate of Jensen, and security member of Check, with the smart phone/tablet and voice command control of Huynh using the known GUI push button because smart phone/tablet control provide an easy remote control without needing a separate remote (i.e. without a separate fob, using the phone/tablet of the user instead) and GUI push buttons provided a simple and easy to use interface.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eccleston, Hebda, Jensen, and Check as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Huynh
Regarding claim 20, the external computing device (RC) is a push button fob in Eccleston.
A smart phone/tablet computing device and a vocal command control are shown in Huynh in figures 1a-9 where door opening system (20) includes a control hub (20) that can receive control signals from a smart phone/tablet (paragraph [0055]) or a voice actuation (paragraph [0054]). While the smart phone/table and voice command are taught separately, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably combine the teaching and perform the voice command control using the smart phone/tablet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Eccleston, having the control hub power relay of Hebda, separate mounting plate of Jensen, and security member of Check, with the smart phone/tablet and voice command control of Huynh because smart phone/tablet control provide an easy remote control without needing a separate remote (i.e. without a separate fob, using the phone/tablet of the user instead) and voice control provides an easy way to activate the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619