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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 9-12, 14, 22, 43, 64, 97,101-104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura JP-2001173345 in view of Hoerner et al. US 2008/0110580 A1 and further in view of Hass et al. US publication no.: US 2021/009047 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 43 and 64, Kitamura teaches, An apparatus comprising: a door (door 1, figure 1) sensor feedback analyzer circuitry to detect a surface pressure load acting on a door based on feedback from a sensor (rotation speed sensor 10, figure 2; paragraphs 15-16 and 26) , (see door, figure 1 which moves along the track); and operations controller circuitry to control operations of the door, the operations controller circuitry to automatically adjust an operation of the door in response to detection of the surface pressure load (see paragraphs 16-17 and 30-31 which explains that the operations of the slat curtain 6 is based on the pressure analyses).
Kitamura is silent on specifically teaching:
The panel including a pliable sheet that is to move along track.
A bag-up sensor to detect whether the panel is bagging up.
Hoerner is in the same field of art and teach: the panel including a pliable sheet that is to move along track (see abstract and figures 1-2).
In view of Hoerner et al.’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Kitamura as modified to include; the panel including a pliable sheet that is to move along track, for the purpose of providing a variant door to be controlled.
Hass et al. is in the same field of art and teach: A bag-up sensor to detect whether the panel is bagging up (see paragraph 57).
In view of Hass et al.’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Kitamura as modified to include; the panel including a pliable sheet, for the purpose of providing a variant door to be controlled.
Regarding claim 3, Kitamura teaches, the apparatus of claim 1, including an encoder to monitor at least one of a position or a speed of rotation of a motor indicative of a at least one of a position or a speed of the panel (see paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 9, Kitamura teaches, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the adjustment to the operation of the door includes commanding the panel to move at a reduced speed relative to a speed before the surface pressure load was detected (see paragraphs 20-30).
Regarding claim 10, Kitamura teaches, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the adjustment to the operation of the door includes reversing a direction of movement of the panel (see paragraph 30-31 “opening/closing of slat curtain).
Regarding claim 11, Kitamura teaches, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the adjustment to the operation of the door includes adjusting a position limit set for the panel (see paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 12, Kitamura teaches, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the adjustment to the operation of the door includes preventing the panel from moving (see paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 14, Kitamura teaches, the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the adjustment to the operation of the door includes causing the panel to move in successive increments temporally spaced by periods of non-movement, the increments being less than a full travel distance of the panel (see paragraphs 33-35 for the variation of the speed control).
Regarding claim 22, Kitamura teaches, an apparatus comprising: at least one memory (storage device 12, figure 2) ; instructions; and processor circuitry (processing device 11, figure 2) to execute the instructions to: detect a surface pressure load acting on a door based on feedback from a sensor, the door including a panel to move along a track; and automatically adjust an operation of the door in response to detection of the surface pressure load (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Kitamura is silent on specifically teaching:
the panel including a pliable sheet.
A bag-up sensor to detect whether the panel is bagging up.
Hoerner is in the same field of art and teach: the panel including a pliable sheet (see abstract and figures 1-2).
In view of Hoerner et al.’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Kitamura as modified to include; the panel including a pliable sheet, for the purpose of providing a variant door to be controlled.
Hass et al. is in the same field of art and teach: A bag-up sensor to detect whether the panel is bagging up (see paragraph 57).
In view of Hass et al.’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Kitamura as modified to include; the panel including a pliable sheet, for the purpose of providing a variant door to be controlled.
Regarding claim 97, Hass et al. teach, the apparatus of claim 1, including a header housing, the bag-up sensor to be within the header housing (see 136, figure 2).
Regarding claim 101, Hass et al. teach, The apparatus of claim 97, wherein the bag-up sensor is to detect whether the panel is bagging up by detecting the panel deviating from a path of normal operation within the header housing (see paragraph 57, where the sensors are disclosed to utilize light beam which detects the deviating path).
Regarding claim 102, Hass et al. teach, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the bag-up sensor is to detect whether the panel is bagging up by detecting the panel accumulating in an area proximate a top of the door, the area spaced apart from a roller around which the panel is to wrap when the panel is in a closed position (see paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 103, Hass et al. teach, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the bag-up sensor includes a photoelectric eye sensor (see photoelectric cells or infrared or laser, paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 104, The apparatus of claim 103, wherein the track is to be mounted adjacent a wall containing a doorway the panel is to selectively block and unblock, and the photoelectric eye sensor is to transmit a beam that is to extend between the wall and the panel when the panel is closed and within a path of normal operation (see light beam paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 105, The apparatus of claim 103, wherein the track is to be mounted adjacent a wall containing a doorway the panel is to selectively block and unblock, and the photoelectric eye sensor is to transmit a beam that is to extend adjacent the panel when the panel is closed and within a path of normal operation, the panel to be between the beam and the wall (see light beam paragraph 57). .
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura JP-2001173345 in view of Hoerner et al. US 2008/0110580 A1 and further in view of Hass et al. US publication no.: US 2021/009047 A1 and Drifka US publication no.: US 2012/0241109 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Kitamura as modified is silent on specifically teaching, the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the preventing the panel from moving includes activating a wind lock associated with the door.
Drifka is in the same field of art and teach: wherein the preventing the panel from moving includes activating a wind lock associated with the door
In view of Drifka’s teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, with the apparatus as taught by Kitamura as modified to include; wherein the preventing the panel from moving includes activating a wind lock associated with the door, for the purpose of protecting the door.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 98-100 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.
Claims 68 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Upon further consideration and in a view of the limitation, the prior art does not explicitly teach or fairly suggest alone or in combination the following:
Claim 68 is allowable among other elements and details, but for at least the reason “detecting the, by executing an instruction with at least one processor, a surface pressure load acting on a door when the deceleration is less than a deceleration threshold; determining an object is obstructing a path of the panel when the deceleration is greater than the deceleration threshold” in combination with the remaining of the claimed subject matter.
Kitamura is the closest prior art of record.
Kitamura teaches a door control device. The prior art does not tech or fairly suggest alone or in combination teach detecting the, by executing an instruction with at least one processor, a surface pressure load acting on a door when the deceleration is less than a deceleration threshold; determining an object is obstructing a path of the panel when the deceleration is greater than the deceleration threshold as seen in claim 68 which is neither inherent nor obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,3,9-14, 22, 43, 64, 97-104 have been considered but are
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1,3,9-14, 22, 43, 64, 97-104 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicants primarily argue that the current application teaches a “bag-up” sensor. Whereas the prior arts cited fail to specifically teach the bag-up sensor as disclosed by the applicants.
Hass et al. is cited for the bag-up sensor by the examiner and points out that it teaches in paragraph 57 and further in paragraph 99 that a sensor it utilized within the door to determine force or pressure which corresponds to “bagging up”.
Examiner points out the current limitations are broad and claim is treated under BRI. Applicants are urged to review the claim in light of paragraph 37 of the instant publication.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHEB S IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4308. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-730pm.
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, Eduardo-Colon Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060 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.
/ZOHEB S IMTIAZ/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2837