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 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall (Pub. No.: 2018/0285814 A1).
1) In regard to claim 8, Hall discloses the claimed server system for providing access to a controlled area (fig. 6), comprising:
communication circuitry (it’s inherent the system of fig. 6 has communication circuitry);
a processor operably coupled to the communication circuitry (it’s inherent the system of fig. 6 has a processor coupled to the communication circuitry); and
a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor (it’s inherent the system of fig. 6 has a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor) to:
receive, from an admission server by the communication circuitry, an admission request initiated by an admission application accessed by a user device for controlling a controllable device using a transmitter (fig. 6 and ¶0066 discloses the customer device 612 may communicate with a centralized server 108 which may in turn communicate with the control module 606a to add access codes to the control module 606a);
identify a transmitter code for the transmitter (¶0066 discloses adding an access code); and
send, by the communication circuitry, an add transmitter request to the controllable device, the add transmitter request including the transmitter code and configured to cause the controllable device to store the transmitter code in a memory of the controllable device (¶0066 discloses the control module is programmed with a new access code).
2) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 8), Hall further disclose the server system of claim 8, wherein the computer-readable medium further stores instructions operative by the processor to: send, by the communication circuitry, a communication including the transmitter code to the transmitter, the communication configured to cause the transmitter to transmit a control signal that includes the transmitter code (¶0067).
3) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 8), Hall further disclose the server system of claim 8, wherein the controllable device is a movable barrier operator configured to actuate a moveable barrier in response to receiving a control signal from the transmitter including the transmitter code (fig. 6 and ¶0058 and ¶0067).
4) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 8), Hall further disclose the server system of claim 8, wherein: the add transmitter request further includes a defined number of permitted control signals that can be accepted by the controllable device for performing an action; and each of the defined number of permitted control signals includes the transmitter code (¶0067).
5) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 8), Hall further disclose the server system of claim 8, wherein the add transmitter request further includes a permitted timeframe in which a control signal including the transmitter code can be accepted by the controllable device for performing an action (¶0067).
6) In regard to claim 14 (dependent on claim 8), Hall further disclose the server system of claim 8, wherein the computer-readable medium further stores instructions operative by the processor to: query a vehicle database to identify the transmitter code associated with the transmitter (¶0067 discloses the codes are linked to specific individuals).
7) In regard to claim 1, claim 1 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 8 and the references applied.
8) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), claim 2 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 9 and the references applied.
9) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), claim 3 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 10 and the references applied.
10) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), claim 4 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 11 and the references applied.
11) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), claim 5 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 12 and the references applied.
12) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), claim 7 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 14 and the references applied.
13) In regard to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 8 and the references applied.
14) In regard to claim 16 (dependent on claim 15), claim 16 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 9 and the references applied.
15) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 15), claim 17 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 10 and the references applied.
16) In regard to claim 18 (dependent on claim 15), claim 18 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 11 and the references applied.
17) In regard to claim 19 (dependent on claim 15), claim 19 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 12 and the references applied.
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 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (Pub. No.: 2018/0285814 A1) in view of Brusseaux (Pub. No.: 2004/0012481 A1).
1) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 8), Hall further disclose the server system of claim 8.
Hall does not explicitly disclose the admission application and the admission server are operated by a parking service and the admission request comprises a request to access a parking area accessible by a movable barrier controlled by the controllable device.
However, Brusseaux discloses it has been known for an admission application and the admission server are operated by a parking service and the admission request comprises a request to access a parking area accessible by a movable barrier controlled by the controllable device (fig. 1 and ¶0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Hall to allow access to a parking lot, as taught by Brusseaux.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Hall as described above in order to utilize the access system in a specific application.
2) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), claim 6 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 13 and the references applied.
3) In regard to claim 20 (dependent on claim 15), claim 20 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 13 and the references applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights