DETAILED ACTION
Final 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 for an entrance system , comprising a controller module and a sensor module , the controller module being for providing control data to the sensor module and the sensor module 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.) , said sensor module being configured to: provide a safety signal representing the sensor data from the sensor module to the control module [0112 in addition to the components of the safety sensor 1a which have already been described in connection with FIG. 1, the safety sensor 1b has a communication unit 31 which is connected to the control unit 13 of the safety sensor 1b and is configured to communicate with an external safety transmitter 32. The safety transmitter 32 is an actuator which is fitted to a protective door 8. The protective door 8 serves to prevent a hazardous and therefore forbidden entry of a person into a safety area around the system 2 during the operation of the system 2. An opening of the protective door 8 can be detected through the communication of the actuator 32 with the communication unit 31 of the safety sensor 1b and this information can be made available to the safety sensor 1b. In this way, the control unit 13 of the safety sensor 1b is enabled to detect the current operational state of the system 2.] , and retrieve the control data from the safety signal by the sensor module [ 0112, 0115 shows that the control data can be sent to element 32 a sensing unit]; said controller module 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 by the control module[ 0115] Claim 15 has similar limitations and is rejected for similar reasons. Fig. 2 also shows that the information being communicated between multiple separate and distinct modules [0109-0111].
As to claim 2, Scholz teaches wherein the safety signal is a dynamic safety signal comprising a plurality of pulses, wherein the sensor module 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 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 is configured to modulate the predetermined frequency, said modulated frequency representing a bit pattern comprising at least one bit, wherein the controller module 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 , wherein the sensor module and the controller module are coupled by means of said interface circuitry over a 10 single wire[0110].
As to claim 6, Scholz teaches wherein the interface circuitry is a duplex communication interface [0066].
As to claim 8, Scholz teaches wherein the interface circuitry comprises a transistor unit and a load , and wherein the controller module is configured to modulate the electrical resistance of the load through control of the transistor unit [0090-0091 how the bits are added].
As to claim 9, Scholz teaches wherein modulating the electrical resistance of the load generates said modulated current, said modulated current representing a bit pattern comprising at least one bit, wherein the sensor module 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 10, Scholz teaches wherein said control data comprises at least one of installation parameters, entrance system characteristics and/or maintenance information[0111].
As to claim 11, Scholz teaches wherein the sensor module 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 comprising a control arrangement according to claim 1 [ 0071].
As to claim 13, Scholz teaches an entrance system comprising an automatic door operator according to claim 12 and one or more movable door members, wherein the control arrangement is configured to cause controlled actuation of the one or more movable door members 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 is adapted to provide galvanic isolation between the sensor module and the controller module (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 methods 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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4-2-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It should be noted that control data is not defined in any way. The same goes for safety signal. Safety signal just represents the sensor data and could be just the sensor data since the claim does not specify anything else.
On page 8 applicant argues that Even assuming a first safety sensor 1 a of Scholz could be read to show or suggest a "sensor module" according to the present invention, the control unit 13 within that safety sensor cannot show a "controller module" because the control unit of Scholz neither receives safety signals from the sensor (since it is itself part of the sensor) nor does the control unit 13 send control data to that sensor. Instead, any signal generated by the control unit of sensor la is sent to a different sensor lb. There is no showing or suggestion that the alleged controller module is "configured to: modulate a current of the safety signal, the modulated current representing the control data" where that control data is "retrieve[d] ... from the safety signal by the sensor module."
Examiner disagrees; there is no reason why control unit 13 can be can’t be the control module. Nothing in the claim states that the sensor module and control module cannot be in the same device. The term module certainly doesn’t define elements as separate and distinct. If Applicant wishes to further define the claims as such, they are welcome to, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would not assume the modules could not be in the same device. Furthermore, Examiner has added new citations to show that the sensor module can receive the “control data” [0109-0116] as argued.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights