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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on June 10, 2025. Claims 1-16 are currently pending in the application.
Continuity/Priority Information
This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 18/484,569, filed on October 11, 2023 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,326,032), which application is a divisional of and claims the benefit of U.S. Application No. 13/941,519, filed on July 14, 2013 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,795,754).
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/10/2025 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
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 9-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the garage door” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the movable barrier gateway device” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on claim 9.
Additionally:
Claims 12-13 recite the limitation “the barrier movement detector” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 15-16 recite the limitation “the barrier movement detector” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Appropriate correction or clarification is requested.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent Number 12326032, claims 6-12 of U.S. Patent Number 11795754, and claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent Number 9015994. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same invention using the same means with little additional change to the claim language, and although U.S. Patent 9015994 is claiming a device and instant application is claiming a method/non-transitory processor-readable media, difference in statutory category does not make them nonobvious over each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if they overcome the nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections, and if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the claims set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose the combination of limitations presented in the claimed invention. Similar to the explanation of reasons for allowance in the parents (PAT 12326032 and 11795754), the closest prior art of Sheldon (U.S Publication No. 2014/0190082) and Mullet (U.S Publication No. 2005/0176400), either alone or in combination, does not expressly teach all of the limitations as recited in independent claims 1 and 9. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose delaying transmission of a signal to move the garage door, by the processor, to an existing movable barrier controller coupled to the movable barrier gateway device for a predetermined time period after the command is received for ignoring the remote command when movement of the garage door is detected during the predetermined time period; detecting, by the processor via a barrier movement detector, movement of the garage door within the predetermined time period; and ignoring, by the processor, the command in response to detecting movement of the garage door within the predetermined time period.
Another relevant prior art, Taki (U.S Publication No. 2006/0238316), teaches a vehicle-based system for receiving commands from a user to perform an action in the vehicle, such as to close or open a vehicle door or window. Specifically, when the communication unit 201 receives a remote command to perform a vehicle-based action, a control unit 204 first checks to determine whether the command should be carried out, based on predefined safety preconditions (such as whether a key is in the ignition, a door is not open, and no passenger is detected in the passenger compartment). If none of the preconditions exists, the control unit executes the command. If a precondition is detected (e.g., a door is opened or a person, animal, or other moving object is detected) and the operation could cause interference or injury (e.g., closing a window, door, or roof), the control unit halts the operation (see Taki, e.g., para. [0048]-[0057]).
However, Taki fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with the prior art, delaying transmission of a signal to move the garage door, by the processor, to an existing movable barrier controller coupled to the movable barrier gateway device for a predetermined time period after the command is received for ignoring the remote command when movement of the garage door is detected during the predetermined time period; detecting, by the processor via a barrier movement detector, movement of the garage door within the predetermined time period; and ignoring, by the processor, the command in response to detecting movement of the garage door within the predetermined time period, as recited in independent claims 1 and 9.
For the reasons above claims 1 and 9 are considered to be allowable.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 depend, directly or indirectly, from allowable claims 1 and 9 and are therefore indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTO-892, Notice of References Cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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 on 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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights