Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/288,325

AUTOMATIC DOOR OPERATOR IN ENTRANCE SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 25, 2023
Examiner
LAUGHLIN, NATHAN L
Art Unit
2119
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Assa Abloy AB
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
504 granted / 754 resolved
+11.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
789
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
48.5%
+8.5% vs TC avg
§102
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§112
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 754 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-15 are rejected below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Scholz (U.S. PG Pub. 2018/0307187). As to claim 1, Scholz teaches a control arrangement (100) for an entrance system (300), comprising a controller module (30) and a sensor module (20), the controller module (30) being for providing control data to the sensor module (20) and the sensor module (20) being for providing sensor data to the controller module (abstract The invention relates to a safety sensor (1) for monitoring the operational safety of a system (2), comprising at least one safety signal input (11, 12) and at least one safety signal output (15, 16) for receiving and outputting safety signals, respectively. A first signal state of the safety signal signals a safe operating state of the system and is represented by a signal value from a first value range assigned to the first signal state, and a second signal state signals an unsafe operating state of the system and is represented by a signal value from a second value range which is assigned to the second signal state and which differs from the first value range. The safety sensor has a control unit (13) which is designed to detect the operating state of the system and output an output safety signal at the at least one safety signal output, the signal state of the safety signal signaling the detected operating state.) (30), said sensor module (20) being configured to: provide a safety signal representing the sensor data [0010 The operational state of the system can be detected by means of an external safety transmitter which is connected via a connection line to a safety signal input of the safety sensor. An external safety transmitter of this type may, for example, be a light barrier, a light grid, an actuator of a contactless safety switch which is fitted, for example, to an access door to be monitored, an emergency off switch or other safety transmitter which serves to detect the operational state of the system. However, the functionality of a safety transmitter of this type can also be integrated into the safety sensor, so that the safety sensor is able to detect the operational state of the system without an external safety transmitter], and retrieve the control data from the safety signal [ 0089 The use of the aforementioned value ranges therefore offers the advantage that a safety sensor or other device which complies with current safety engineering standards can reliably detect the operational state of the system signaled by the respective signal state on the basis of a safety signal transmitted by a safety sensor according to the invention, independently from the additional data impressed on the safety signal. The standard compliance of the safety sensor according to the invention and its compatibility with conventional standard-compliant safety sensors and other devices are advantageously guaranteed as a result.]; said controller module (30) being configured to: modulate a current of the safety signal, the modulated current representing the control data, and retrieve the sensor data from the safety signal[ 0090-0091 ccording to a further advantageous development of the invention, it is provided that the control unit is configured to impress additional data on the transmitted output safety signal and/or on the received input safety signal using a unipolar or bipolar line code, an AMI code, a block code, a Manchester code, an amplitude shift keying, a frequency shift keying, a phase shift keying, a quadrature amplitude modulation, a pulse amplitude modulation, a pulse phase modulation, a pulse frequency modulation and/or a pulse width modulation. The additional data to be impressed on the safety signal may be present in analog or digital form. The additional data may be transmitted through baseband transmission as a baseband signal or as a useful signal which is modulated onto a carrier signal] Claim 15 has similar limitations and is rejected for similar reasons. As to claim 2, Scholz teaches wherein the safety signal is a dynamic safety signal comprising a plurality of pulses, wherein the sensor module (20) is configured to modulate pulse widths of said plurality of pulses, said modulated pulse widths representing a bit pattern comprising at least one bit, wherein the controller module (30) is configured to retrieve the sensor data by translating said bit pattern representation [0090]. As to claim 3, Scholz teaches according to wherein the safety signal is a dynamic safety signal comprising a plurality of pulses appearing at a predetermined frequency, wherein the sensor module (20) is configured to modulate the predetermined frequency, said modulated frequency representing a bit pattern comprising at least one bit, wherein the controller module (30) is configured to retrieve 30 the sensor data by translating said bit pattern representation [0090]. As to claim 4, Scholz teaches wherein the sensor data includes detection information, sensor module characteristics, maintenance information, process information and/or positional information [0150]. As to claim 5, Scholz teaches further comprising an interface circuitry (40), wherein the sensor module (20) and the controller module (30) are coupled by means of said interface circuitry (40) over a 10 single wire[0110]. As to claim 6, Scholz teaches wherein the interface circuitry (40) is a duplex communication interface [0066]. As to claim 8, Scholz teaches wherein the interface circuitry (40) comprises a transistor unit (52) and a load (54), and wherein the controller module (30) is configured to modulate the electrical resistance of the load (54) through control of the transistor unit (52)[0090-0091 how the bits are added]. As to claim 9, Scholz teaches wherein modulating the electrical resistance of the load (54) generates said modulated current, said modulated current representing a bit pattern comprising at least one bit, wherein the sensor module (20) is configured to retrieve control data from the one or more dynamic safety signals by translating said bit pattern representation [0090-0091]. As to claim 9, Scholz teaches wherein said control data comprises at least one of installation parameters, entrance system characteristics and/or maintenance information[0111]. As to claim 9, Scholz teaches wherein the sensor module (20) comprises one or more sensor units, said one or more sensor units being: optical sensors; ultrasonic sensors; inductive sensors; galvanic sensors; magnetic sensors; photoelectric sensors; capacitive sensors; pneumatic sensors; weight or pressure sensors; cameras; electromechanical switches; or any combination thereof [0111]. As to claim 12, Scholz teaches automatic door operator (200) comprising a control arrangement (100) according to claim 1 [ 0071]. As to claim 13, Scholz teaches an entrance system (300) comprising an automatic door operator (200) according to claim 12 and one or more movable door members (3 l0a-n), wherein the control arrangement (100) is configured to cause controlled actuation of the one or more movable door members (3 l0a-n) at least in part based on the sensor data[0112]. As to claim 14, Scholz teaches wherein said controlled actuation involves inhibiting, stopping or reverting current or future movement of at least one of the one or more movable door members (3 l0a-n)[0112]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz (U.S. PG Pub. 2018/0307187) in view of Koehler (U.S. PG Pub. 20210240116). Scholz teaches most of the claimed invention, but does not explicitly teach all of claim 7. However, this is an obvious variation as taught by Koehler as follows: As to claim 7, Koehler teaches wherein the interface circuitry (40) is adapted to provide galvanic isolation between the sensor module (20) and the controller module (30) (element 330). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Koehler into the system and mthods of Scholz. The motivation to combine is that Koehler teaches galvanic isolator 330 electrically isolates the high voltage AC components of voltage sensor 328 and current sensor 332 from the low voltage DC components of controller 334. For example, galvanic isolator 330 may include an optocoupler to pass the sensed voltage signal and the sensed current signal to controller 334[0034]. Other art of record The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: De Coi (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0060210) teaches monitoring sensors within an elevator system. Gruber (U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0156900) teaches monitoring a safety door switch. Papembreer (U.S. Pat. 10,969,759) teaches safety controller of industrial automation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM. 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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. /NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 25, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12572126
METHOD FOR SETTING PARAMETERS OF PLC SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557250
INTELLIGENT DUAL PURPOSE HEAT EXCHANGER AND FAN WALL FOR A DATACENTER COOLING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12535239
MACHINE LEARNING DEVICE, DEMAND CONTROL SYSTEM AND AIR-CONDITIONER CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12526168
CONTROL DEVICE FOR A BUILDING AUTOMATION SYSTEM HAVING GLOBAL DATA MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12517482
Power Management With Dynamic Rectifier Apportionment
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+10.2%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 754 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month