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
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 14 are amended.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to claim objections 1,4, and 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of Claims 1, 4, and 8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) 1-10, 12-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-10, 12-14 have been withdrawn. However, the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection for Claim 11 still stands, as no arguments were presented to address the original rejection to the limitations of “the detected approach angle” and “the closing side”.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 of Claims 1-14 are not withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments. A new rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 is applied for Claim 1 under prior arts Nichani (US 20040045339) in view of Doi (US 20150001794 A1).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/01/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the at least one leaf” in lines 15 and 16 should be -the at least one door leaf-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites “a method”, which should be “the method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 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 11 recites “the detected approach angle” and “the closing side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the 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 1, 4, 7-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichani (US 20040045339) in view of Doi (US 20150001794 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Nichani teaches
a method for operating a door system (See Fig 1) with a door actuator (See Para[0002] “These sensors typically send signals to logic circuits which control mechanical actuators”), wherein the door system has at least one door leaf (See Para[0012] “a door such as a sliding or a swinging door”), and wherein a sensor unit (See Fig 6 Component 60 stereo image acquisition device) is configured and connected to a control unit of the door system, wherein the approach of an object to the door system within a detection region is detected by the sensor unit (See Para[0063] Points that belong to an object are already segmented in a given frame. According to the unique correlation algorithm, these points are determined in the subsequent frame by correlating these features in an area around the expected object position in the subsequent frame), where the method includes at least the following steps:
determining for a first time at least one first object position of the object within the detection region (See Para[0065] “Once a motion vector is computed from frames t to t-1 for a given object, correspondence is known between the various object points. Since the 3D locations of these points are known, 3D motion can be optionally computed.”),
determining for a second time at least one subsequent second object position of the object within the detection region (See Para[0065] “Once a motion vector is computed from frames t to t-1 for a given object, correspondence is known between the various object points. Since the 3D locations of these points are known, 3D motion can be optionally computed.”),
calculating an object vector based on the first and second object positions (See Para[0065] “Once a motion vector is computed from frames t to t-1 for a given object, correspondence is known between the various object points. Since the 3D locations of these points are known, 3D motion can be optionally computed.”),
opening the at least one door leaf depending on properties of the calculated object vector (See Para[0068] “the trajectory processor 66 generates control signals (i.e. open, close or stall signals) based upon an object's trajectory and communicates the control signals to a door actuator 66 which operates the door based upon the control signals”)
and controlling movement of the at least one door leaf with the control unit wherein the at least one (door) leaf performs a pivoting movement formed by a hinge side (See Para[0068] “the trajectory processor 66 generates control signals (i.e. open, close or stall signals) based upon an object's trajectory and communicates the control signals to a door actuator 66 which operates the door (i.e. door leaf) based upon the control signals” In other words, there is a pivoting movement when the door opens or closes on a hinge side.).
Nichani is silent to the language of opening the at least one door leaf is determined with an opening width between 0° and 75°. Doi teaches opening the at least one door leaf determined with an opening width between 0° and 75° (See Para[0025] “a maximum opening angle a of the door 102 is set at about 40.degree. in the present embodiment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nichani wherein Doi determines the opening of the door leaf with an opening width between 0° and 75°. This would allow Nichani to more precisely control the motion of the door leaf when the control unit sends the signal to open the door.
With respect to Claim 4, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of Claim 1. Nichani further teaches
wherein raw data is recorded with the sensor unit having a number of points in a point field (See Para[0043] “The stereo block 70 takes a set of input images 72A, 72B, 72C (Right, Left, Top) and produces the 3D location of the edge or boundary points in the reference image. Inputs from three cameras are shown, although two cameras will suffice in most cases, especially if the features predominantly occur in one orientation.”), wherein the first and second object positions are determined from the raw data by a computer unit of the sensor unit or the control unit, wherein the control unit carries out the calculation of the object vector from the first and second object positions. (See Para[0065] “Once a motion vector is computed from frames t to t-1 for a given object, correspondence is known between the various object points. Since the 3D locations of these points are known, 3D motion can be optionally computed.”)
With respect to Claim 7, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of Claim 1. Nichani further teaches
wherein the at least one door leaf is designed as a rotary leaf and performs the pivoting movement (See Para[0012] “In an illustrative embodiment of the invention, a stereo door sensor (SDS) includes a stereo imaging based vision system to monitor the area on one or two sides of a door such as a sliding or a swinging door.”) or the at least one door leaf is designed as a sliding door leaf and performs the linear sliding movement when the at least one door leaf is moved by the opening step (See Para[0012] “ In an illustrative embodiment of the invention, a stereo door sensor (SDS) includes a stereo imaging based vision system to monitor the area on one or two sides of a door such as a sliding or a swinging door.”)
With respect to Claim 8, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of Claim 1. Nichani further teacheswherein the calculating step of the object vector (See Para[0065] Once a motion vector is computed from frames t to t-1 for a given object, correspondence is known between the various object points. Since the 3D locations of these points are known, 3D motion can be optionally computed.) and/or the opening step of the at least one door leaf is only carried out if the second object position is closer to the at least one door leaf than the first object position (See Para[0065] “In the illustrative embodiment, the trajectory processor 66 generates control signals (i.e. open, close or stall signals) based upon an object's trajectory and communicates the control signals to a door actuator 66 which operates the door based upon the control signals.”), wherein a first direction of the object vector consequently points in a second direction of the door system.
With respect to Claim 9, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of Claim 1. Nichani further teacheswherein deactivation data for deactivating the detection region of at least one defined region of the detection region is provided to the sensor unit by the control unit or in that the control unit filters out, deletes object data of the sensor unit in a defined region of the detection region, or hides a hidden region (See Para[0008] “Other more refined systems use additional sensors to detect a door's actual position over time and ignore only the portions of a frame where the door or door frame is expected to appear, see for example U.S. patent application Ser. No. 2001/0030689 to Spinelli.”).
With respect to Claim 10, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of Claim 9. Nichani further teaches
wherein the at least one defined region is formed around the at least one door leaf to avoid self-detection of the at least one door leaf by the sensor unit (See Para[0008] “Other more refined systems use additional sensors to detect a door's actual position over time and ignore only the portions of a frame where the door or door frame is expected to appear, see for example U.S. patent application Ser. No. 2001/0030689 to Spinelli.”).
With respect to Claim 12, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of Claim 1. Nichani further teaches
a door actuator (See Para[0002] “These sensors typically send signals to logic circuits which control mechanical actuators”) with the door system (See Fig 1) for carrying out a method according to claim 1.
With respect to Claim 13, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of Claim 12. Nichani further teaches
the door system comprising at least one door actuator according to claim 12 and at least one door leaf (See Para[0012] “a door such as a sliding or a swinging door”).
With respect to Claim 14, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of Claim 1. Nichani further teaches
a computer program product for carrying out the method according to claim 1, or for implementation in the control unit (See Para[0068] “The trajectory processor 66 can be either a hardware processor such as a personal computer or a software module capable of performing the trajectory computation steps described hereinbefore.” Therefore, the computer program product is being implemented inside the control unit, i.e. the trajectory processor.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichani and Doi in view of Rainer (DE 102019207656 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Rainer”.
With respect to Claim 2, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of Claim 1. Nichani and Doi are silent to the language of
wherein opening the at least one door leaf is determined with an opening speed, an opening time, an opening hold time, or a closing time. Nevertheless, Rainer teaches wherein opening the at least one door leaf is determined with an opening speed, an opening time, an opening hold time, or a closing time (See Para[0008] “In order to adapt the speed of rotation of the door leaves to the speed of passage, the control device can comprise at least one application-specific integrated circuit and / or a microprocessor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nichani and Doi wherein opening the at least one door leaf is determined with an opening speed, an opening time, an opening hold time, or a closing time such as that of Rainer. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Nichani and Doi, because Rainer teaches the opening of the door is determined by the rotating speed of the door which would accurately open the door at a desired speed.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichani and Doi in view of Haag et al. (US 20050174077 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Haag".
With respect to Claim 3, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of Claim 1. Nichani and Doi are silent to the language of
wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one radar sensor or is a radar sensor, or the sensor unit includes, without any further sensors, of precisely one radar sensor or of radar sensors.
Nevertheless, Haag teaches
wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one radar sensor or is a radar sensor, or the sensor unit includes, without any further sensors, of precisely one radar sensor or of radar sensors (See Fig. 1 Components 22 and 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichani and Doi wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one radar sensor or is a radar sensor, or the sensor unit includes, without any further sensors, of precisely one radar sensor or of radar sensors such as that of Haag.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Nichani and Doi, because Haag teaches a radar sensor which yields the predictable result of accurately detecting objects in addition to accurately determining the approach speed of the object.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichani and Doiin view of Hoshide et al. (EP 1681424 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Hoshide".
With respect to Claim 5, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of claim 1.
Nichani and Doi are silent to the language of: wherein the sensor unit records two-dimensional raw data, comprising a number of points in a point field.
Nevertheless, Hoshide teaches
wherein the sensor unit records two-dimensional raw data, comprising a number of points in a point field (See Fig. 2 Components 18A and 18B and Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichani and Doi wherein the sensor unit records two-dimensional raw data, comprising a number of points in a point field such as that of Hoshide.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Nichani and Doi, because Hoshide teaches two-dimensional image sensors that can provide 2D coordinates for the object, and doing so can yield lower computational costs and more efficient data management for data storage purposes.
With respect to Claim 6, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of claim 1.
Nichani and Doi are silent to the language of
wherein the control unit or the sensor unit carries out the calculation of the object vector from two-dimensional object positions, comprising object positions lying in one plane.
Nevertheless, Hoshide teaches
wherein the control unit or the sensor unit carries out the calculation of the object vector from two-dimensional object positions, comprising object positions lying in one plane (See Fig. 2 Components 18A and 18B and the Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichani and Doi wherein the control unit or the sensor unit carries out the calculation of the object vector from two-dimensional object positions, comprising object positions lying in one plane such as that of Hoshide.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Nichani and Doi, because Hoshide teaches two-dimensional image sensors that can provide 2D coordinates for the object, which will in turn be used to efficiently calculate the motion vector of the object. Doing so will yield lower computational costs and more efficient data management for data storage purposes.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichani and Doi in view of Sasaki et al. (US 20190360256 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Sasaki".
With respect to Claim 11, Nichani and Doi teach the limitations of claim 1. Nichani and Doi are silent to the language of
,
wherein a maximum opening width, a maximum opening speed, an opening time, an opening hold time, or a closing time is determined by the control unit depending on the detected approach angle of the object
or in that
the opening speed of the at least one door leaf is determined to be smaller when the object approaches the door system from a first direction of the closing side than when the object approaches the door system from a second direction of the hinge side, and wherein
the opening speed of the at least one door leaf is determined to be greater when the object approaches the door system from the second direction of the hinge side than when the object approaches the door system from the first direction of the closing side.
Nevertheless, Sasaki teaches:
wherein a maximum opening width, a maximum opening speed, an opening time, an opening hold time, or a closing time is determined by the control unit depending on the detected approach angle of the object (See Para[0182] “The “direction along the door 21” may be the opening-closing direction d1 shown in FIG. 2 or a direction having an angle with the opening-closing direction d1 smaller than a threshold (that is, a direction almost same as the opening-closing direction d1). By performing the traverse invalid control, it is possible to more effectively prevent the unnecessary opening and closing operations of the door 21 and to prevent the safety deterioration.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichani and Doi wherein a maximum opening width, a maximum opening speed, an opening time, an opening hold time, or a closing time is determined by the control unit depending on the detected approach angle of the object such as that of Sasaki.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Nichani and Doi, because Sasaki teaches the opening and closing operations of the door, which includes an opening time, to be dependent on the approach angle of an object. Doing so will allow accurate control of the kinematics of the door leaf.
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 MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights