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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, the applicant’s 01/16/26 amendments overcome the previous 112 rejection in some ways but also raise a new 112 issue, as seen below.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the amended limitations are directed to generic gathering of data using generic sensors. For step 2A, prong two, such a limitation merely serves to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. rejection, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the art teaches what the applicant argues that it lacks in the amended claims. Paragraph 0050 of Han disclose “vibration data from at least one of the sensors.” This is broadly construed to suggest an acoustic sensor.
Also, it should be noted that all of the claimed sensors are generically claimed and presented in the applicant’s disclosure as merely exemplary, such that the different types of claimed sensors would be considered equivalent and obvious replacements for the sensors taught by Han.
The rejection is maintained.
Drawings
As discussed in the previous action, the drawings of 06/14/22 are accepted.
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 15, as amended in the 09/09/25 amendments, is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15, as amended, states:
A non-transitory computer program product for determining a status of a door system, wherein the computer program product comprises commands, which, when the computer program product is executed by a computer, (This limitation, when considered with the limitations that follow it, is considered to be indefinite. This limitation ends by giving the condition of “when the computer program is executed by a computer …” This suggests that the next limitation will describe a computer operation. However, the next limitation states, “wherein the system comprises a status device and the door system.” Read together, the complete sentence would read, “A non-transitory computer program product for determining a status of a door system, wherein the computer program product comprises commands, which, when the computer program product is executed by a computer, wherein the system comprises a status device and the door system …” Such a sentence does not make grammatical sense. Also, such as sentence does not make technical sense, as it is not clear how a program product executed by a computer results in a structural system comprising a status device and a door system.
The other limitations share similar issues, when considered with the amended preamble.
Claim 15 was previously a dependent claim. It appears that it is now being amended to represent an independent claim that is directed to a non-transitory computer program product. The examiner suggests that the body of the claim be written in such a way, so as to be consistent, both grammatically and technically, with the amended preamble.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider claim 15 in two parts: 1) the preamble and 2) the rest of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method for verifying, which is a process. Independent claim 11 is directed to a method for determining, which is a process. Independent claim 12 is directed to a status device, which is a machine. Independent claim 13 is directed to a system for determining, which is a machine. Independent claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer program product, which is a manufacture. All other claims depend on the independent claims. As such, claims 1-2, 4, 7-15, and 17-18 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
A method for verifying a status of a door system of a door device (Determination or verification, in a general sense, is nothing more than making an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or an opinion. This can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore recites an abstract mental process.)
at least one item of measurement information relating to the door system is determined in a measuring step (Determination or verification, in a general sense, is nothing more than making an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or an opinion. This can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore recites an abstract mental process.)
the status of the door system is determined or verified using a model and using the at least one determined item of measurement information in a status determination step, wherein the model has a first model block for the first subsystem and a second model block for the second subsystem (The claims do not give any detail about the nature of the models used. Simple models represent mental processes that can be performed in the human mind. More complex models, such as artificial intelligence models, recite mathematical concepts. Both scenarios recite abstract ideas.)
wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on at least one property of the first subsystem is determined or quantified by the model (This limitation recites abstract mathematical relationships, and as discussed above, the model represents an abstract mathematical concept.)
wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on a variation of at least one property of the first subsystem is determined or quantified by the model (This limitation recites abstract mathematical relationships, and as discussed above, the model represents an abstract mathematical concept.)
wherein a sign of wear or a wear status of the first subsystem is determined by the determined dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on the at least one property of the first subsystem or by the determined dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on the variation of the at least one property of the first subsystem, as part of the status determination step (This limitation recites abstract mathematical relationships, and as discussed above, the model represents an abstract mathematical concept.)
wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from the sign of wear or the wear status (This limitation recites an abstract idea, in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. In the scenario where the scheduled service visit takes the form of a mental note, such as, “I will go check on the door system next Tuesday,” that is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. In the scenario where the scheduled service visit takes the form of party A making a calendar appointment with party B, that constitutes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity are types of abstract ideas.)
Claim 2
wherein the first model block relates to at least one property of the first subsystem and wherein the second model block relates to at least one property of the second subsystem (This limitation is akin to assigning variables or creating mathematical relationships. It therefore recites an abstract idea.)
Claim 4
wherein the model comprises at least one item of model information for at least one measurement variable or actuation variable of the door system (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept in the form of defining a mathematical variable.)
or wherein the model is configured for outputting at least one item of model information for the at least one measurement variable or actuation variable of the door system, wherein the status determination step for determining or verifying the status of the door system comprises a comparison of the at least one item of measurement information with the at least one item of model information of the model (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept in the form of defining a mathematical variable. It also recites an abstract mental process, as a simple comparison between two categories of data points can generally be performed in the human mind.)
Claim 7
wherein the model is verified or tested by one or a plurality of measurement values or actuation values relating to the door system or relating to a further door system in a testing step of the model, preferably before the status determination step, wherein it is verified during the verification or the test whether the model meets an accuracy criterion (Verification according to a general accuracy criterion is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. It is an abstract mental process.)
Claim 8
wherein a partial region of an operating phase of the door system is determined using the model, by a sign of wear of the first subsystem or of the second subsystem or of the door system being determinable by determining the at least one item of measurement information, by determining at least one measurement variable or actuation variable (Determination of a specific piece of data using a model recites an abstract mathematical concept or an abstract mental process, or both. Variables are mathematical concepts.)
or wherein a partial region of an operating phase of the door system is determined using an artificial intelligence system, by a sign of wear of the first subsystem or of the second subsystem or of the door system being determinable by determining the at least one item of measurement information, by determining at least one measurement variable or actuation variable (Determination of a specific piece of data using a model recites an abstract mathematical concept or an abstract mental process, or both. Variables are mathematical concepts.)
Claim 11
A method for determining a status of a door system of a door device (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept and/or mental process for the reasons recited above.)
determining at least one item of measurement information relating to the door system in a measuring step (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept and/or mental process for the reasons recited above.)
determining the status of the door system and verifying the status using a model and using the at least one determined item of measurement information in a status determination step, wherein the model has a first model block for the first subsystem and a second model block for the second subsystem (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept and/or mental process for the reasons recited above.)
wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on at least one property of the first subsystem is determined and quantified by the model (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept and/or mental process for the reasons recited above.)
wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on a variation of at least one property of the first subsystem is determined and quantified by the model (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept and/or mental process for the reasons recited above.)
wherein a sign of wear or a wear status of the first subsystem is determined by the determined dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on the at least one property of the first subsystem and by the determined dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on the variation of the at least one property of the first subsystem, as part of the status determination step (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept and/or mental process for the reasons recited above.)
wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from the sign of wear or the wear status (This limitation recites an abstract idea, in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. In the scenario where the scheduled service visit takes the form of a mental note, such as, “I will go check on the door system next Tuesday,” that is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. In the scenario where the scheduled service visit takes the form of party A making a calendar appointment with party B, that constitutes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity are types of abstract ideas.)
Claim 12
A status device for determining a status of a door system (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept and/or mental process for the reasons recited above.)
wherein the status device is configured for determining or verifying the status of the door system by a model and the at least one determined item of measurement information, wherein the model has a first model block for the first subsystem and a second model block for the second subsystem (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept and/or mental process for the reasons recited above.)
wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from a sign of wear or a wear status (This limitation recites an abstract idea, in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. In the scenario where the scheduled service visit takes the form of a mental note, such as, “I will go check on the door system next Tuesday,” that is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. In the scenario where the scheduled service visit takes the form of party A making a calendar appointment with party B, that constitutes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity are types of abstract ideas.)
Claim 13
A system for determining a status of a door system (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept and/or mental process for the reasons recited above.)
wherein the status device is configured for determining or verifying the status of the door system by a model and by the at least one determined item of measurement information, wherein the model has a first model block for the first subsystem and a second model block for the second subsystem (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept and/or mental process for the reasons recited above.)
wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from a sign of wear or a wear status (This limitation recites an abstract idea, in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. In the scenario where the scheduled service visit takes the form of a mental note, such as, “I will go check on the door system next Tuesday,” that is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. In the scenario where the scheduled service visit takes the form of party A making a calendar appointment with party B, that constitutes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity are types of abstract ideas.)
Claim 15
determining a status of a door system (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept and/or mental process for the reasons recited above.)
wherein the door system has at least one first subsystem and one second subsystem … determining or verifying the status of the door system using a model and the at least one determined item of measurement information, wherein the model has a first model block for the first subsystem and a second model block for the second subsystem, wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from a sign of wear or a wear status … for determining or verifying a status of a door system, wherein the door system has at least one first subsystem and one second subsystem … including the steps of determining at least one item of measurement information relating to the door system … determining or verifying the status of the door system using a model and the at least one determined item of measurement information in a status determination step (This limitation recites an abstract mathematical concept and/or mental process for the reasons recited above.)
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
a door system of a door device, wherein the door device is an entry device for an area or a building (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The invention is directed to data processing of data regarding a door device, as opposed to positive recitation of the structure of the door device.)
the door system has at least one first subsystem and one second subsystem (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). No details are given as to the nature of the subsystems. If anything, it appears that the claimed subsystems are merely computer-implemented representations of door components, as opposed to the structure of the door components themselves. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is also not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).)
by measuring a measurement variable of the door system with a measuring device or by setting or determining an actuation variable of the door system with a control device, wherein the measuring device is a sensor, the sensor being a structure-borne sound sensor, an acoustic sensor, a voltage sensor, a current sensor, a temperature sensor, or an optical sensor (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because measuring data using generic sensors merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).)
Claim 9
wherein the operating phase of the door system comprises an opening process or a closing process of the door system or of a door device including the door system, wherein the partial region of the operating phase is only a partial region of the opening process or of the closing process (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the disclosure of the opening and/or closing process of the door system/device appears to merely be data points considered by a computer processing step, as opposed to a structural transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
Claim 10
wherein the door system is a partial system of a door device, wherein the door system is a drive unit of the door device or comprises a drive unit of the door device (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, the disclosure of the drive unit of the door device appears to merely serve as context for data points considered by a computer processing step, as opposed to a structural transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
Claim 11
a door system of a door device, wherein the door device is an entry device for an area or a building (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The invention is directed to data processing of data regarding a door device, as opposed to positive recitation of the structure of the door device.)
wherein the door system has at least one first subsystem and one second subsystem (see rationale for claim 1 above)
by measuring a measurement variable of the door system with a measuring device or by setting or determining an actuation variable of the door system with a control device, wherein the measuring device is a sensor, the sensor being a structure-borne sound sensor, an acoustic sensor, a voltage sensor, a current sensor, a temperature sensor, or an optical sensor (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because measuring data using generic sensors merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).)
Claim 12
wherein the door system has at least one first subsystem and one second subsystem (see rationale for claim 1 above)
wherein the status device is configured for obtaining at least one determined item of measurement information relating to the door system (Mere data gathering merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.)
by measuring a measurement variable of the door system with a measuring device or by setting or determining an actuation variable of the door system with a control device, wherein the measuring device is a sensor, the sensor being a structure-borne sound sensor, an acoustic sensor, a voltage sensor, a current sensor, a temperature sensor, or an optical sensor (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because measuring data using generic sensors merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).)
Claim 13
wherein the system comprises a status device and the door system (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. There are no structural details given with respect to the status determination device or door system.)
wherein the door system has at least one first subsystem and one second subsystem (see rationale for claim 1 above)
wherein the status device is configured for obtaining at least one determined item of measurement information relating to the door system (Mere data gathering merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.)
Claim 14
wherein the system comprises a measuring device or a control device (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because it merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. There are no structural details given with respect to the measuring device or control device.)
wherein the measuring device is configured in such manner that the measuring device determines the at least one item of measurement information by measuring a measurement variable of the door system, wherein the measuring device is configured such that the measuring device provides the at least one item of measurement information to the status device (This limitation is directed to mere data gathering, which as discussed above, merely serves to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.)
wherein the control device is configured in such manner that the control device determines the at least one item of measurement information by setting or determining an actuation variable of the door system, wherein the control device is configured such that the control provides the at least one item of measurement information to the status device (This limitation appears to merely use a computer for computer processing in some sort of data determination and then outputting the results. The “control” does not appear to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
Claim 15
A non-transitory computer program product (Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application)
obtaining at least one determined item of measurement information relating to the door system (As discussed above, mere data gathering is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.)
measuring step by measuring a measurement variable of the door system with a measuring device or by setting or determining an actuation variable of the door system with a control device, wherein the measuring device is a sensor, the sensor being a structure-borne sound sensor, an acoustic sensor, a voltage sensor, a current sensor, a temperature sensor, or an optical sensor (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because measuring data using generic sensors merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).)
Claim 17
wherein maintenance indication is transmitted to a maintenance device or a maintenance technician (This limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application because transmitting data merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.)
Claim 18
wherein wear features or damage features are extracted from the operating system and maintenance is focused or limited to one subsystem or a plurality of subsystems of the door system, for which wear has been determined when determining and/or verifying the status of the door system (This limitation appears to be a data processing application that merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.)
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving and processing data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
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) 1-2, 4, 7-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (KR 20210054868 A) (see attached machine translation).
With respect to claim 1, Han et al discloses:
A method for verifying a status of a door system of a door device (paragraph 0002 states, “It collects status information on each platform safety door …”; paragraph 0019 states, “The configuration of the above-mentioned platform safety door device can be controlled by a platform safety door control device.”)
wherein the door device is an entry device for an area or a building (Paragraph 0019 states, “Platform safety doors may be a device that ensures passenger safety within a station by installing a safety barrier (e.g., movable door, emergency door) on the platform to block the platform and the tracks … Platform safety doors can operate in a cycle from opening to closing in conjunction with the train doors and the order in which trains enter the station.” The door device here is therefore an entry device for the area between the train platform and the entry into the train.)
and the door system has at least one first subsystem and one second subsystem (paragraphs 0020-0021 states, “The platform safety door control device may include a platform safety door, a safety door control unit, a customer center … and a main control unit (MCU) main control panel that controls each component. The safety door control unit may include a sensor input module for sensing the safety door and the landing, a motor control module for driving the safety door, an input/output module, a sound module, a power supply device, and a control device for controlling each component.”; paragraph 0026 states, “The fault diagnosis and prediction unit (230) can diagnose or predict a fault in a component (e.g., DCU, sensor, etc.) …”; The various components represent different subsystems. See also paragraph 0039.)
at least one item of measurement information relating to the door system is determined in a measuring step (paragraph 0006 states, “an embodiment of a platform screen door (PSD) failure diagnosis and prediction device may include a data collection unit which receives information including system status data …”; paragraph 0041 states, “The system status data (215) may include at least one of status information and failure data of the platform safety door control device or the platform safety door. For example, system status data may include values related to whether the elevator safety door is closed/open, whether there is a delay, whether a sensor is detecting it, and whether there is a malfunction.”)
by measuring a measurement variable of the door system with a measuring device or by setting or determining an actuation variable of the door system with a control device, wherein the measuring device is a sensor, the sensor being a structure-borne sound sensor, an acoustic sensor, a voltage sensor, a current sensor, a temperature sensor, or an optical sensor (paragraph 0050 states, “receive vibration data from at least one of the sensors …” This suggests an acoustic sensor.)
the status of the door system is determined or verified using a model and using the at least one determined item of measurement information in a status determination step, wherein the model has a first model block for the first subsystem and a second model block for the second subsystem (paragraph 0006 states, “an embodiment of a platform screen door (PSD) failure diagnosis and prediction device may include a data collection unit which receives information including system status data … a failure diagnosis and prediction unit which generates remaining useful life (RUL) information of a configuration included in a PSD by performing machine learning of a RUL model based on the information …”; paragraph 0026 states, “The elevator safety door device can diagnose a failure of a configuration included in the elevator safety door and output a remaining life prediction value for the failure by machine learning a remaining life model based on the DNN technique using data or a combination of data collected by a data collection unit (210) as input values.”; As discussed above, the data includes data for each of the various components, which are construed to serve as the first and second model blocks.)
With respect to claim 1, Han et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on at least one property of the first subsystem is determined or quantified by the model
wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on a variation of at least one property of the first subsystem is determined or quantified by the model
wherein a sign of wear or a wear status of the first subsystem is determined by the determined dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on the at least one property of the first subsystem or by the determined dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on the variation of the at least one property of the first subsystem, as part of the status determination step
wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from the sign of wear or the wear status
With respect to claim 1, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Han et al.
wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on at least one property of the first subsystem is determined or quantified by the model (Han et al does not explicitly use the term “dependency.” However, from a conceptual perspective, the dependency that the claim is referring to appears to merely be measured sensor data of a specific property of a specific component (i.e. a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on at least one property) serving as input into a model (i.e. determined or quantified by the model). This is supported by applicant’s figure 3, and the applicant’s originally filed claim 5, which stated, “wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information (100, 101, 102) on at least one property of the first subsystem (11) is determined and/or quantified by means of the model (20) …” Conceptually, this is merely sensor data being fed into a model, which is shown simply in the applicant’s figure 3. Although Han et al uses different language, it teaches this concept. It gathers particular sensor data and feeds it into a model (see paragraph 0006). The claimed limitation is therefore obvious in view of the teachings of Han et al.)
wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on a variation of at least one property of the first subsystem is determined or quantified by the model (Han et al does not explicitly use the term “dependency.” However, from a conceptual perspective, the dependency that the claim is referring to appears to merely be measured sensor data of a specific property of a specific component (i.e. a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on at least one property) serving as input into a model (i.e. determined or quantified by the model). This is supported by applicant’s figure 3, and the applicant’s originally filed claim 5, which stated, “wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information (100, 101, 102) on a variation of at least one property of the first subsystem (11) is determined and/or quantified by means of the model (20) …” Conceptually, this is merely sensor data being fed into a model, which is shown simply in the applicant’s figure 3. Although Han et al uses different language, it teaches this concept. It gathers particular sensor data and feeds it into a model (see paragraph 0006). The claimed limitation is therefore obvious in view of the teachings of Han et al.)
wherein a sign of wear or a wear status of the first subsystem is determined by the determined dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on the at least one property of the first subsystem or by the determined dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on the variation of the at least one property of the first subsystem, as part of the status determination step (In view of the above, this limitation appears to be conceptually disclosing sensors feeding data into a model and then the information being output by the model being used to determine wear status. Although Han et al uses different language, this is what Han et al is doing. It takes sensor data, feeds it into a model (such as a remaining useful life model), and then uses the output of the model to predict possible failures that would require maintenance, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be suggestive of “wear status,” as the purpose of “wear status” in the applicant’s invention is the same, to predict potential problems and potentially provide preventative maintenance, as maintenance of an actual failure is generally more expensive. Although different language is used, Han et al is disclosing similar concepts executed for similar reasons.)
wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from the sign of wear or the wear status (Paragraphs 0002-0003 state, “It collects status information on each platform safety door and, based on this, provides failure information on each of a plurality of platform safety doors, thereby providing an opportunity for the person in charge, such as an engine driver, station staff, or maintenance personnel, to take necessary measures … the person in charge can check the status of the platform safety door by checking the information provided and then perform maintenance as necessary.” Scheduling a service visit is obvious to taking “necessary measures” and “performing maintenance as necessary.” And if the “necessary measure” is that the maintenance personnel checks the safety door in person and performs any type of operation on it, that would be equivalent to a service visit being scheduled and fulfilled.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Han et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of preventing sudden failures and reducing door maintenance costs.
With respect to claim 2, Han et al discloses:
wherein the first model block relates to at least one property of the first subsystem and wherein the second model block relates to at least one property of the second subsystem (paragraph 0039 states, “The platform safety door setting value (211) is a present value for the platform safety door control device or the operation of the platform safety door, and may include at least one of data related to the operation time, operation sequence, or operation algorithm of each component of the platform safety door.”)
With respect to claim 4, Han et al discloses:
wherein the model comprises at least one item of model information for at least one measurement variable or actuation variable of the door system (paragraph 0026 states, “The elevator safety door device can diagnose a failure of a configuration included in the elevator safety door and output a remaining life prediction value for the failure by machine learning a remaining life model based on the DNN technique using data or a combination of data collected by a data collection unit (210) as input values.”)
or wherein the model is configured for outputting at least one item of model information for the at least one measurement variable or actuation variable of the door system, wherein the status determination step for determining or verifying the status of the door system comprises a comparison of the at least one item of measurement information with the at least one item of model information of the model (paragraph 0026 states, “The elevator safety door device can diagnose a failure of a configuration included in the elevator safety door and output a remaining life prediction value for the failure by machine learning a remaining life model based on the DNN technique using data or a combination of data collected by a data collection unit (210) as input values.” The comparison is suggested by use of the DNN technique.)
With respect to claim 7, Han et al discloses:
wherein the model is verified or tested by one or a plurality of measurement values or actuation values relating to the door system or relating to a further door system in a testing step of the model, preferably before the status determination step, wherein it is verified during the verification or the test whether the model meets an accuracy criterion (Paragraph 0035 states, “in one embodiment, the data imbalance processing unit (290) can increase the number of data when the fault diagnosis and prediction unit (230) or the fault cause inference unit (250) lacks the data required for machine learning … The GAN technique is a method to improve the efficiency and accuracy of neural network learning …”)
With respect to claim 8, Han et al discloses:
wherein a partial region of an operating phase of the door system is determined using the model, by a sign of wear of the first subsystem or of the second subsystem or of the door system being determinable by determining the at least one item of measurement information, by determining at least one measurement variable or actuation variable (paragraph 0007 states, “According to embodiments of the present invention, by applying and analyzing artificial intelligence technology to various data recorded in a platform safety door integrated control device, the remaining life of a platform safety door can be predicted … and it can enable parts demand forecasting …”)
or wherein a partial region of an operating phase of the door system is determined using an artificial intelligence system, by a sign of wear of the first subsystem or of the second subsystem or of the door system being determinable by determining the at least one item of measurement information, by determining at least one measurement variable or actuation variable (paragraph 0007 states, “According to embodiments of the present invention, by applying and analyzing artificial intelligence technology to various data recorded in a platform safety door integrated control device, the remaining life of a platform safety door can be predicted … and it can enable parts demand forecasting …”)
With respect to claim 9, Han et al discloses:
wherein the operating phase of the door system comprises an opening process or a closing process of the door system or of a door device including the door system, wherein the partial region of the operating phase is only a partial region of the opening process or of the closing process (paragraph 0039 states, “the platform safety door setting value (211) may include the safety door closing/opening operation time, delay time, sensor detection count, or the closing/opening cycle of the platform safety door linked to the train entrance/exit door.”; see also paragraphs 0019, 0021, 0043, and 0072)
With respect to claim 10, Han et al discloses:
wherein the door system is a partial system of a door device, wherein the door system is a drive unit of the door device or comprises a drive unit of the door device (paragraph 0021 discloses “a motor control module for driving the safety door.”)
With respect to claim 11, Han et al discloses:
A method for determining and/or verifying a status of a door system of a door device (paragraph 0002 states, “It collects status information on each platform safety door …”; paragraph 0019 states, “The configuration of the above-mentioned platform safety door device can be controlled by a platform safety door control device.”)
wherein the door device is an entry device for an area or a building (Paragraph 0019 states, “Platform safety doors may be a device that ensures passenger safety within a station by installing a safety barrier (e.g., movable door, emergency door) on the platform to block the platform and the tracks … Platform safety doors can operate in a cycle from opening to closing in conjunction with the train doors and the order in which trains enter the station.” The door device here is therefore an entry device for the area between the train platform and the entry into the train.)
and the door system has at least one first subsystem and one second subsystem (paragraphs 0020-0021 states, “The platform safety door control device may include a platform safety door, a safety door control unit, a customer center … and a main control unit (MCU) main control panel that controls each component. The safety door control unit may include a sensor input module for sensing the safety door and the landing, a motor control module for driving the safety door, an input/output module, a sound module, a power supply device, and a control device for controlling each component.”; paragraph 0026 states, “The fault diagnosis and prediction unit (230) can diagnose or predict a fault in a component (e.g., DCU, sensor, etc.) …”; The various components represent different subsystems. See also paragraph 0039.)
wherein the method includes the following steps:
determining at least one item of measurement information relating to the door system in a measuring step (This limitation is anticipated by the receiving of sensor data, which is disclosed throughout the disclosure of Han et al, such as in paragraph 0006.)
by measuring a measurement variable of the door system with a measuring device or by setting or determining an actuation variable of the door system with a control device, wherein the measuring device is a sensor, the sensor being a structure-borne sound sensor, an acoustic sensor, a voltage sensor, a current sensor, a temperature sensor, or an optical sensor (paragraph 0050 states, “receive vibration data from at least one of the sensors …” This suggests an acoustic sensor.)
determining the status of the door system and verifying the status using a model and using the at least one determined item of measurement information in a status determination step, wherein the model has a first model block for the first subsystem and a second model block for the second subsystem (paragraph 0006 states, “an embodiment of a platform screen door (PSD) failure diagnosis and prediction device may include a data collection unit which receives information including system status data … a failure diagnosis and prediction unit which generates remaining useful life (RUL) information of a configuration included in a PSD by performing machine learning of a RUL model based on the information …”; paragraph 0026 states, “The elevator safety door device can diagnose a failure of a configuration included in the elevator safety door and output a remaining life prediction value for the failure by machine learning a remaining life model based on the DNN technique using data or a combination of data collected by a data collection unit (210) as input values.”; As discussed above, the data includes data for each of the various components, which are construed to serve as the first and second model blocks.)
With respect to claim 11, Han et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on at least one property of the first subsystem is determined and quantified by the model
wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on a variation of at least one property of the first subsystem is determined and quantified by the model
wherein a sign of wear or a wear status of the first subsystem is determined by the determined dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on the at least one property of the first subsystem and by the determined dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on the variation of the at least one property of the first subsystem, as part of the status determination step
wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from the sign of wear or the wear status
With respect to claim 11, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Han et al.
wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on at least one property of the first subsystem is determined and quantified by the model (Han et al does not explicitly use the term “dependency.” However, from a conceptual perspective, the dependency that the claim is referring to appears to merely be measured sensor data of a specific property of a specific component (i.e. a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on at least one property) serving as input into a model (i.e. determined or quantified by the model). This is supported by applicant’s figure 3, and the applicant’s originally filed claim 5, which stated, “wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information (100, 101, 102) on at least one property of the first subsystem (11) is determined and/or quantified by means of the model (20) …” Conceptually, this is merely sensor data being fed into a model, which is shown simply in the applicant’s figure 3. Although Han et al uses different language, it teaches this concept. It gathers particular sensor data and feeds it into a model (see paragraph 0006). The claimed limitation is therefore obvious in view of the teachings of Han et al.)
wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on a variation of at least one property of the first subsystem is determined and quantified by the model (Han et al does not explicitly use the term “dependency.” However, from a conceptual perspective, the dependency that the claim is referring to appears to merely be measured sensor data of a specific property of a specific component (i.e. a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on at least one property) serving as input into a model (i.e. determined or quantified by the model). This is supported by applicant’s figure 3, and the applicant’s originally filed claim 5, which stated, “wherein a dependency of the at least one item of measurement information (100, 101, 102) on a variation of at least one property of the first subsystem (11) is determined and/or quantified by means of the model (20) …” Conceptually, this is merely sensor data being fed into a model, which is shown simply in the applicant’s figure 3. Although Han et al uses different language, it teaches this concept. It gathers particular sensor data and feeds it into a model (see paragraph 0006). The claimed limitation is therefore obvious in view of the teachings of Han et al.)
wherein a sign of wear or a wear status of the first subsystem is determined by the determined dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on the at least one property of the first subsystem and by the determined dependency of the at least one item of measurement information on the variation of the at least one property of the first subsystem, as part of the status determination step (In view of the above, this limitation appears to be conceptually disclosing sensors feeding data into a model and then the information being output by the model being used to determine wear status. Although Han et al uses different language, this is what Han et al is doing. It takes sensor data, feeds it into a model (such as a remaining useful life model), and then uses the output of the model to predict possible failures that would require maintenance, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be suggestive of “wear status,” as the purpose of “wear status” in the applicant’s invention is the same, to predict potential problems and potentially provide preventative maintenance, as maintenance of an actual failure is generally more expensive. Although different language is used, Han et al is disclosing similar concepts executed for similar reasons.)
wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from the sign of wear or the wear status (Paragraphs 0002-0003 state, “It collects status information on each platform safety door and, based on this, provides failure information on each of a plurality of platform safety doors, thereby providing an opportunity for the person in charge, such as an engine driver, station staff, or maintenance personnel, to take necessary measures … the person in charge can check the status of the platform safety door by checking the information provided and then perform maintenance as necessary.” Scheduling a service visit is obvious to taking “necessary measures” and “performing maintenance as necessary.” And if the “necessary measure” is that the maintenance personnel checks the safety door in person and performs any type of operation on it, that would be equivalent to a service visit being scheduled and fulfilled.)
With respect to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Han et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of preventing sudden failures and reducing door maintenance costs.
With respect to claim 12, Han et al discloses:
A status device for determining a status of a door system, wherein the door system has at least one first subsystem and one second subsystem (paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0014, 0020-0021, 0026, and 0030-0039; see discussion above)
wherein the status device is configured for obtaining at least one determined item of measurement information relating to the door system (paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0014, 0020-0021, 0026, and 0030-0039; see discussion above)
by measuring a measurement variable of the door system with a measuring device or by setting or determining an actuation variable of the door system with a control device, wherein the measuring device is a sensor, the sensor being a structure-borne sound sensor, an acoustic sensor, a voltage sensor, a current sensor, a temperature sensor, or an optical sensor (paragraph 0050 states, “receive vibration data from at least one of the sensors …” This suggests an acoustic sensor.)
wherein the status device is configured for determining or verifying the status of the door system by a model and the at least one determined item of measurement information, wherein the model has a first model block for the first subsystem and a second model block for the second subsystem (paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0014, 0020-0021, 0026, and 0030-0039; see discussion above)
With respect to claim 12, Han et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from a sign of wear or a wear status
With respect to claim 12, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Han et al:
wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from a sign of wear or a wear status (Paragraphs 0002-0003 state, “It collects status information on each platform safety door and, based on this, provides failure information on each of a plurality of platform safety doors, thereby providing an opportunity for the person in charge, such as an engine driver, station staff, or maintenance personnel, to take necessary measures … the person in charge can check the status of the platform safety door by checking the information provided and then perform maintenance as necessary.” Scheduling a service visit is obvious to taking “necessary measures” and “performing maintenance as necessary.” And if the “necessary measure” is that the maintenance personnel checks the safety door in person and performs any type of operation on it, that would be equivalent to a service visit being scheduled and fulfilled.)
With respect to claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Han et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of preventing sudden failures and reducing door maintenance costs.
With respect to claim 13, Han et al discloses:
A system for determining a status of a door system, wherein the system comprises a status device and the door system, wherein the door system has at least one first subsystem and one second subsystem (paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0014, 0020-0021, 0026, and 0030-0039; see discussion above)
wherein the status device is configured for obtaining at least one determined item of measurement information relating to the door system (paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0014, 0020-0021, 0026, and 0030-0039; see discussion above)
determining at least one item of measurement information relating to the door system in a measuring step by measuring a measurement variable of the door system with a measuring device or by setting or determining an actuation variable of the door system with a control device, wherein the measuring device is a sensor, the sensor being a structure-borne sound sensor, an acoustic sensor, a voltage sensor, a current sensor, a temperature sensor, or an optical sensor (paragraph 0050 states, “receive vibration data from at least one of the sensors …” This suggests an acoustic sensor.)
wherein the status device is configured for determining or verifying the status of the door system by a model and by the at least one determined item of measurement information, wherein the model has a first model block for the first subsystem and a second model block for the second subsystem (paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0014, 0020-0021, 0026, and 0030-0039; see discussion above)
With respect to claim 13, Han et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from a sign of wear or a wear status
With respect to claim 13, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Han et al:
wherein a service visit is scheduled to perform maintenance work on the door system, resulting from a sign of wear or a wear status (Paragraphs 0002-0003 state, “It collects status information on each platform safety door and, based on this, provides failure information on each of a plurality of platform safety doors, thereby providing an opportunity for the person in charge, such as an engine driver, station staff, or maintenance personnel, to take necessary measures … the person in charge can check the status of the platform safety door by checking the information provided and then perform maintenance as necessary.” Scheduling a service visit is obvious to taking “necessary measures” and “performing maintenance as necessary.” And if the “necessary measure” is that the maintenance personnel checks the safety door in person and performs any type of operation on it, that would be equivalent to a service visit being scheduled and fulfilled.)
With respect to claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Han et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of preventing sudden failures and reducing door maintenance costs.
With respect to claim 14, Han et al discloses:
wherein the system comprises a measuring device or a control device (paragraphs 0002, 0007-0008, 0021, and 0039 disclose safety door control device)
wherein the measuring device is configured in such manner that the measuring device determines the at least one item of measurement information by measuring a measurement variable of the door system, wherein the measuring device is configured such that the measuring device provides the at least one item of measurement information to the status device (paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0014, 0020-0021, 0026, and 0030-0039; see discussion above)
or wherein the control device is configured in such manner that the control device determines the at least one item of measurement information by setting or determining an actuation variable of the door system, wherein the control device is configured such that the control provides the at least one item of measurement information to the status device (paragraph 0043; see discussion above)
With respect to claim 15, Han et al discloses:
A non-transitory computer program product for determining a status of a door system, wherein the computer program product comprises commands, which when the computer program product is executed by a computer, (As discussed in the 112 rejection above, for the purposes of examination, the examiner will consider claim 15 in two parts: 1) the preamble and 2) the rest of the claim. For the preamble, Han et al paragraph 0080 states, “When implemented in software, a computer-readable storage medium … One or more programs stored in a computer-readable storage medium …” For the rest of the claim, the limitations represent a variant of what was rejected in claims 1 and 11-13. The limitations here are rejected for similar reasons.)
With respect to claim 17, Han et al discloses:
wherein maintenance indication is transmitted to a maintenance device or a maintenance technician (Paragraphs 0002-0003 state, “It collects status information on each platform safety door and, based on this, provides failure information on each of a plurality of platform safety doors, thereby providing an opportunity for the person in charge, such as an engine driver, station staff, or maintenance personnel, to take necessary measures … the person in charge can check the status of the platform safety door by checking the information provided and then perform maintenance as necessary.”)
With respect to claim 18, Han et al discloses:
wherein wear features or damage features are extracted from the operating system and maintenance is focused or limited to one subsystem or a plurality of subsystems of the door system, for which wear has been determined when determining and/or verifying the status of the door system (obvious in view of disclosure of Han, which discloses failure diagnosis based on sensed data (paragraph 0006), with many types of sensed data for many different components considered (as discussed above). Paragraph 0003 discloses maintenance as necessary, and performing maintenance on only those components that are determined to need it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dannemann et al (US PgPub 20210207418) discloses a closing device and method for closing a door.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached on (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 05/22/26
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights