DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pages 2 and 17 of the specification recites “the transmission has a translation ratio as a quotient of the speed of the rotor as a dividend and the speed of the output shaft, which is less than 125. However, amended claim 14 recites “the transmission has transmission ratio defined as a quotient of the rotational speed of the rotor as a dividend and the rotational speed of the output shaft, wherein the transmission ratio is less than 125”. This is objected to because the terminology of the claim was modified and the Specification was not. Examiner recommends that the Specification is amended to reflect the terminology of the amended claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the intention to open is detected by at least one sensor, wherein the sensor”. This is objected to since “the sensor” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. “at least one sensor” is previously recited. Which of the “at least one sensors” is “the sensor”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “the sensor is formed as an inertial sensor and/or as a Hall sensor”. This is objected to since “the sensor” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. “at least one sensor” is previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 11 depends. Which sensor is “the sensor”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “the opening torque is already generated in the closed position of the leaf”. This is unclear since “the opening torque” lacks proper antecedent basis and is unclear (i.e. what is “the opening torque”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “an open intention” and “an intention to open”. These phrases appear to be referring to the same thing. Consistent terminology must be maintained throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the drive device comprises at least one sensor to detect an open intention, wherein the sensor is formed as an acoustic sensor”. This is objected to since “the sensor” lacks proper antecedent basis (i.e. “at least one sensor” is previously recited. Which of the “at least one sensors” is “the sensor”?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 and 14-15 are objected to as depending from a base claim with an objection.
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 5, 11, and 13-15 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 5 recites “the sensor is formed as part of the drive device, in that the sensor is arranged at least partially within a housing of the drive device, or in that the sensor is arranged on the leaf”. This renders the claim indefinite, since “wherein the angle measuring device comprises at least one Hall sensor and/or as at least one inertial sensor” is previously recited in claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, and “wherein the intention to open is detected by at least one sensor, wherein the sensor is formed as an acoustic sensor” is previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, and it is therefore unclear which of the numerous “sensors” the multiple recitations of “the sensor” is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the sensor is formed as an inertial sensor and/or as a Hall sensor”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear how “the sensor” of claim 1, which is claimed as being “an acoustic sensor”, could also be “formed as an inertial sensor and/or as a Hall sensor”, since acoustic sensor are very different from both “inertial sensors” and “Hall sensors”, and it is unclear how the claimed sensor would be both types of sensors at the same time. Additionally, Applicants disclosure as originally filed does not clarify this issue. Rather, the various sensors as described in Applicants specification seem to be very different (See pages 3 and 6-7) and cannot be a single sensor.
Claim 13: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “A drive device”, and the claim also recites “in particular for carrying out the method according to claim 1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Dye et al. (US 10,236,801) (hereinafter Dye) in view of Clift (US 2018/0058132).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Dye discloses a drive device for pivoting a leaf from a closed position at an opening angle of 0⁰ to an open position at an opening angle of greater than 0⁰ and/or from the open position at the opening angle of greater than 0⁰ to the closed position at the opening angle of 0⁰ by a leaf torque, wherein the leaf toque comprises a manual torque (See at least paragraph [0017]), generated by a person, and a drive torque, wherein the drive torque is generated by the drive device with a drive module (at least element 108), a closer module and a controller module, wherein the drive module has an electric machine (element 108) comprising a stator and a rotor, wherein the closer module has an energy storage (considered either element 122 or 134), wherein the controller module has a controller device (element 116) and wherein the drive torque comprises a machine torque generated directly or indirectly by the electric machine and a closer torque generated by the closer module, wherein at at least one opening angle of greater than 0⁰, the machine torque is greater than 0 Nm (See at least paragraph [0066], “In the final phase of closing, the motor 108 receives the stored electrical power from storage device 122 through control circuit 116 to provide a boost force to assist the spring 134 in closing the door to a closed position. The rotational torque of the motor 108 is transferred back to the arm or set of arms attached to the door frame through the planetary gear set 128, and bevel gear 136 and pinion 130.”), wherein the drive device comprises at least one sensor [to detect an open intention]*, [wherein if an intention to open is detected the opening torque is already generated in the closed position of the leaf]*.
Dye discloses use of sensors for providing operational feedback to the controller (See paragraph [0018]), but Dye lacks wherein the sensor is formed as an acoustic sensor. Clift, however teaches that it is known in the art to configure a drive device for pivoting a leaf that uses an acoustic senor for detecting an intention to open a door (See paragraphs [0019] and [0022-0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the drive device of Dye such that it used an acoustic sensor, as taught by Clift, since use of an acoustic sensor would enhance the functionality of the system by detecting “a sound requesting a door to open” (See Clift paragraph [0019]), which would be desirable for particular applications of the system. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Examiner’s note: *The above statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a drive device, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the drive device disclosed by Dye is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Dye discloses whereby a transmission (element 128) coupled with the electric machine and an output shaft rotatable about an output axis for, non-rotatable, connection to a lever (considered “closer arm”, See at least paragraph [0064], “Door closer system 100 of FIG. 3 also includes gear set 128 which in this embodiment includes a planetary gear set coupled to a rack (not shown in FIG. 3 for clarity) and pinion 130, where the pinion 130 acts as a pivot for a closer arm” and [0065], “As the door is opened by a user, an arm, or a set of arms that are attached to a door frame (not shown), pivots and rotates the pinion 130”). Although Dye does not explicitly recite that the transmission has a transmission ratio as a quotient of the speed of the rotor as a dividend and the speed of the output shaft, which is less than 125, Examiner notes that, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the transmission of Dye such that it includes a transmission ratio as a quotient of the speed of the rotor as a dividend and the speed of the output shaft, which is less than 125, since the door drive device would function as intended when configured in this way, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the transmission of Dye such that it includes a transmission ratio as a quotient of the speed of the rotor as a dividend and the speed of the output shaft, which is less than 125, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and adjustment of a “ transmission ratio” to achieve a desired rotational speed or torque is a predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dye et al. (US 10,236,801) (hereinafter Dye) in view of Clift (US 2018/0058132) and further in view of Taheri et al. (US 2009/0206777) (hereinafter Taheri).
Regarding claim 15, Dye discloses that the electric machine is a “motor 108 … of any known variety, such as a brushed or brushless DC permanent magnet motor” (See paragraph [0018]). Additionally, Taheri teaches that it is known in the art to configure a movable barrier system that utilizes an axial flux (i.e. pancake) motor (See paragraph [0039], “A hub motor, as described herein, may be any type of motor that uses a pancake motor configuration, usually, and without limiting the scope of the present invention, making the motor wider than longer. This is desirable over cylindrically configured motors due to a pancake motor's compact design. Typically, the direction of the magnetic flux is axial, that is, parallel to the axis of rotation, which is an advantage when implementing an internal planetary gearing system”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the motor of Dye such that it is an axial flux motor, as taught by Taheri, since an axial flux motor would function as intended for the purpose of Dye, and since the compact design of an axial flux “pancake” motor would be desirable.
Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143. Examiner further notes that the in that the stator obviously has one or more coils and the rotor obviously has one or more permanent magnets to function as intended, however, if Applicant disagrees, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the electric motor of Dye such that the stator has one or more coils and the rotor has one or more permanent magnets, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended independent claim 13 to include a portion of the claim language of claims 11 and 12. However, claims 11 and 12 originally depended from claim 1, and the amendment to claim 13 has raised new issues (See objections/rejections above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner believes that Claims 1-4 and 6-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action
Conclusion
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 JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634