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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 7/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-19 will be examined hereafter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hayashida (US 5,594,316).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashida discloses a sliding door closure system for a door [configured to slidably cover a door opening]*, the sliding door closure system comprising: a track (element 28) [configured to be located adjacent to the door opening and further configured to slidably support the door]*; a drive wheel (element 2) [configured to rotate in response to a relative motion between the door and the track]*; a generator (at least elements 31 and 32) operatively connected to the drive wheel, the generator [configured to convert a portion of kinetic energy of the door to electric energy]*; and an energy source (element 18) [configured to receive the electric energy produced by the generator and store the electric energy]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below 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 sliding door, 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 sliding door disclosed by Hayashida 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 4, Hayashida discloses wherein the drive wheel is a friction drive wheel.
Regarding claim 5, Hayashida discloses wherein the friction drive wheel is [configured to be engaged with the track, and wherein the friction drive wheel is further configured to support at least a portion of a weight of the door]*.
Regarding claim 8, Hayashida discloses wherein the generator is mounted to the door such that the generator is configured to move with the door.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-12, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Andou (US 6,633,094).
Regarding claim 1, Andou discloses a sliding door closure system for a door [configured to slidably cover a door opening]*, the sliding door closure system comprising: a track (element 204) [configured to be located adjacent to the door opening and further configured to slidably support the door]*; a drive wheel (element 4) [configured to rotate in response to a relative motion between the door and the track]*; a generator (element 15 or 84) operatively connected to the drive wheel, the generator [configured to convert a portion of kinetic energy of the door to electric energy]*; and an energy source (element 58 or 98) [configured to receive the electric energy produced by the generator and store the electric energy]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below 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 sliding door, 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 sliding door disclosed by Andou 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 2, Andou discloses wherein the door closure system has an open position where the door is open and a closed position where the door is closed and [wherein the generator is further configured to slow a motion of the door as the door approaches at least one of the open position or the closed position]* (See at least column 7, lines 15-45).
Regarding claim 4, Andou discloses wherein the drive wheel is a friction drive wheel.
Regarding claim 5, Andou discloses wherein the friction drive wheel is configured to be engaged with the track, and wherein the friction drive wheel is further configured to support at least a portion of a weight of the door.
Regarding claim 8, Andou discloses wherein the generator is mounted to the door such that the generator is configured to move with the door.
Regarding claim 10, Andou discloses wherein a gearbox (considered elements 14 and 18) is operatively connected between the drive wheel and the generator
Regarding claim 11, Andou discloses further comprising: at least one sensor (element 52) configured to collect data on operation of the door, wherein the energy source is [configured to supply power to the at least one sensor]*.
Regarding claim 12, Andou discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a position sensor [configured to measure a position of the door on the track]*.
Regarding claim 14, Andou discloses a processor (considered electrical circuit controlling elements 15 and 52) [configured to interpret an output from the at least one sensor, wherein the processor is configured to direct the operation of the door closure system based at least in part on the output interpreted from the at least one sensor]*.
Regarding claim 17, Andou discloses [wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect a presence of an obstacle in a path of the door]* (See at least column 8, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 18, Andou discloses wherein the door closure system has an open position where the door is open and a closed position where the door is closed and [wherein the processor uses the output from the at least one sensor to operate the electrical generator to slow the door as the door approaches at least one of the open position or the closed position]*.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WO2021/255139 (See US 2023/0220715 for US equivalent, hereinafter Abrahamsson).
Regarding claim 1, Abrahamsson discloses a sliding door closure system for a door [configured to slidably cover a door opening]*, the sliding door closure system comprising: a track (element 19) [configured to be located adjacent to the door opening and further configured to slidably support the door]*; a drive wheel (element 18) [configured to rotate in response to a relative motion between the door and the track]*; a generator (element 11, see paragraph [0128], “[0128], “In one embodiment, at least one motor 11 of the drive unit 10 is configured to act as a generator”) operatively connected to the drive wheel, the generator [configured to convert a portion of kinetic energy of the door to electric energy]*; and an energy source (See paragraph [0066] of US2023/0220715, “To provide power to the motor 11, the at least one motor 11 may be connected to at least one energy storage device, such as a battery, arranged to power the at least one motor 11” and [0128], “In one embodiment, at least one motor 11 of the drive unit 10 is configured to act as a generator and to charge the at least one energy storage device when the door 8 is moved from the open position O to the closed position C. In one embodiment, both the first and second motor 11a, 11b of the drive unit 10 is configured to act as a generator and to charge the at least one energy storage device when the door 8 is moved from the open position O to the closed position C. Due to the weight of the door 8 forcing the door towards the closed position, the at least one motor of the drive unit is caused to rotate, whereby the motor may generate power for charging said energy storage device” [configured to receive the electric energy produced by the generator and store the electric energy]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below 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 sliding door, 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 sliding door disclosed by Abrahamsson 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 2, Abrahamsson discloses wherein the door closure system has an open position where the door is open and a closed position where the door is closed and [wherein the generator is further configured to slow a motion of the door as the door approaches at least one of the open position or the closed position]* (See at least paragraph [0132] of US2023/0220715, “As the sprocket(s) 18 are rotated the generator 11 is rotated. The generator 11 reduces the speed of the door 8. The generator 11 that is connected to the energy storage device charges said energy storage device when moved.”.
Regarding claim 3, Abrahamsson discloses wherein the generator is a first generator (See at least Figures 3a-3b, element 11a), [wherein the first generator is configured to slow the motion of the door as the door approaches the closed position]*, and further comprising a second generator (See at least Figures 3a-3b, element 11b), [wherein the second generator is configured to slow the motion of the door as the door approaches the open position]*.
Regarding claim 6, Abrahamsson discloses a chain (element 19) [configured to be attached to the door]* (Examiner notes that all structural elements of the door system are either directly or indirectly “attached”), wherein the drive wheel is a sprocket (element 18) engaged with the chain, and [wherein the sprocket is configured to rotate in response to a movement of the chain]* (Examiner notes that element 18 is entirely capable of rotating in response to movement of element 19).
Regarding claim 10, Abrahamsson discloses wherein a gearbox is operatively connected between the drive wheel and the generator (paragraph [0098], “The reduction gearing 76 connects the driven transmission member 18 and the motor 11. The reduction gearing may be in the form of a gearbox 76. A gearbox 76 enables selective torque control between for example a high speed mode and a high torque mode of the door operator system”).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by JP2002013345.
Regarding claim 1, JP2002013345 discloses a sliding door closure system for a door [configured to slidably cover a door opening]*, the sliding door closure system comprising: a track (element 3) [configured to be located adjacent to the door opening and further configured to slidably support the door]*; a drive wheel (element 5B) [configured to rotate in response to a relative motion between the door and the track]*; a generator (element 15) operatively connected to the drive wheel, the generator [configured to convert a portion of kinetic energy of the door to electric energy]*; and an energy source (element 32) [configured to receive the electric energy produced by the generator and store the electric energy]*.
Examiner’s note: *The above/below 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 sliding door, 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 sliding door disclosed by JP2002013345 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 2, JP2002013345 discloses wherein the door closure system has an open position where the door is open and a closed position where the door is closed and [wherein the generator is further configured to slow a motion of the door as the door approaches at least one of the open position or the closed position]* (See at least paragraphs [0017], [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, JP2002013345 discloses wherein the drive wheel is a friction drive wheel.
Regarding claim 5, JP2002013345 discloses wherein the friction drive wheel is [configured to be engaged with the track, and wherein the friction drive wheel is further configured to support at least a portion of a weight of the door]*.
Regarding claim 8, JP2002013345 discloses wherein the generator is mounted to the door such that the generator is configured to move with the door.
Regarding claim 11, JP2002013345 discloses at least one sensor (considered at least element 8) [configured to collect data on operation of the door, wherein the energy source is configured to supply power to the at least one sensor]* (See at least paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, JP2002013345 discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a position sensor [configured to measure a position of the door on the track]* (See at least paragraphs [0011-0012].
Regarding claim 13, JP2002013345 discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a force sensor [configured to measure a sliding resistance of the door]* (See at least paragraphs [0011-0012]).
Regarding claim 14, JP2002013345 discloses a processor (See Figure 4, element 25) [configured to interpret an output from the at least one sensor, wherein the processor is configured to direct the operation of the door closure system based at least in part on the output interpreted from the at least one sensor]*.
Regarding claim 17, JP2002013345 discloses wherein the at least one sensor is [configured to detect a presence of an obstacle in a path of the door]* (See at least paragraphs [0022], [0034])
Regarding claim 18, JP2002013345 discloses wherein the door closure system has an open position where the door is open and a closed position where the door is closed and wherein the processor uses the output from the at least one sensor to operate the electrical generator to slow the door as the door approaches at least one of the open position or the closed position (See at least paragraphs [0017], [0025]).
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 11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021/255139 (See US 2023/0220715 for US equivalent, hereinafter Abrahamsson) in view of JP2002013345.
Regarding claim 11, Abrahamsson discloses at least one sensor (See paragraphs [0027], [0113-0120], [0142-0144], considered element 110, 114, or numerous “sensors” recited) [configured to collect data on operation of the door]*. Although the energy source of Abrahamsson is indicated as providing power to the motor (see paragraphs [0054], [0066], [0128]), Abrahamsson does not explicitly disclose wherein the energy source is configured to supply power to the at least one sensor. JP2002013345, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a sliding door closure system for a door [configured to slidably cover a door opening]*, the sliding door closure system comprising: a track (element 3) [configured to be located adjacent to the door opening and further configured to slidably support the door]*; a drive wheel (element 5B) [configured to rotate in response to a relative motion between the door and the track]*; a generator (element 15) operatively connected to the drive wheel, the generator [configured to convert a portion of kinetic energy of the door to electric energy]*; and an energy source (element 32) [configured to receive the electric energy produced by the generator and store the electric energy], and at least one sensor (considered at least element 8) [configured to collect data on operation of the door, wherein the energy source is configured to supply power to the at least one sensor]* (See at least paragraph [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 energy source of Abrahamsson such that it is configured to supply power to the at least one sensor, since this would be a logical and obvious way to provide electrical operating power to the at least one sensor of Abrahamsson, and since the energy source of Abrahamsson is already disclosed as providing electrical power to other parts 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
Regarding claim 13, Abrahamsson discloses wherein the at least one sensor is a force sensor [configured to measure a sliding resistance of the door]* (See paragraph [0016], [0027-0028], [0114], [0145-0148]).
Regarding claim 14, Abrahamsson discloses a processor (element 100) [configured to interpret an output from the at least one sensor, wherein the processor is configured to direct the operation of the door closure system based at least in part on the output interpreted from the at least one sensor]* (See at least paragraphs [0113-0115], [0141-0163].
Regarding claim 15, Abrahamsson discloses a non-transitory memory, [wherein the processor is configured to record the output of one or more sensors in the non-transitory memory]* (See at least paragraphs [0017-0020], paragraphs [0118-0119], “The control device 100 may be configured to store information from the detection associated with opening and closing movement of the door during normal operation”, [0162-0163]).
Regarding claim 16, Abrahamsson discloses [wherein the processor is additionally configured to collect and transmit data regarding at least one of the operation or condition of the sliding door closure system]* (See at least paragraphs [0113-0120], [0153-0157], [0162-167].
Regarding claim 17, Abrahamsson discloses wherein the at least one sensor is [configured to detect a presence of an obstacle in a path of the door]* (See at least paragraphs [0016], [0027-0028], [0146-0148], [0185], Examiner notes that the various sensors of Abrahamsson are entirely capable of detecting “an obstacle in a path of the door”).
Regarding claim 18, Abrahamsson discloses wherein the door closure system has an open position where the door is open and a closed position where the door is closed and [wherein the processor uses the output from the at least one sensor to operate the electrical generator to slow the door as the door approaches at least one of the open position or the closed position]* (See at least paragraph [0129-0132]).
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2002004701 in view of JP2002103345.
Regarding claim 1, JP2002004701 discloses a sliding door closure system for a door [configured to slidably cover a door opening]*, the sliding door closure system comprising: a track (See Figures 1-7) [configured to be located adjacent to the door opening and further configured to slidably support the door]*; a drive wheel (considered either of element 17, 18, or 19) [configured to rotate in response to a relative motion between the door and the track]*; a generator (element 31) operatively connected to the drive wheel, the generator [configured to convert a portion of kinetic energy of the door to electric energy]*. JP2002004701 does not explicitly disclose use of an energy source configured to receive the electric energy produced by the generator and store the electric energy. JP2002013345, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a sliding door closure system for a door [configured to slidably cover a door opening]*, the sliding door closure system comprising: a track (element 3) [configured to be located adjacent to the door opening and further configured to slidably support the door]*; a drive wheel (element 5B) [configured to rotate in response to a relative motion between the door and the track]*; a generator (element 15) operatively connected to the drive wheel, the generator [configured to convert a portion of kinetic energy of the door to electric energy]*; and an energy source (element 32) [configured to receive the electric energy produced by the generator and store the electric energy]. 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 door system of JP2002004701 such that it includes use of an energy source configured to receive the electric energy produced by the generator and store the electric energy, since this would enable the system to store electrical energy harvested by the generator, which could then be used by the drive motor or other electrical devices to enhance the functionality of the system, and to power electrical devices in the event of a power failure. 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/below 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 sliding door, 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 sliding door disclosed by JP2002004701 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 6, JP2002004701 discloses further comprising a chain (element 20) [configured to be attached to the door]*, wherein the drive wheel is a sprocket (element 19) engaged with the chain, [and wherein the sprocket is configured to rotate in response to a movement of the chain]*.
Regarding claim 9, JP2002004701 discloses wherein the generator is mounted to a position that remains stationary relative to the door opening and the track.
Claims 1-2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH0893316 in view of JP2002103345.
Regarding claim 1, JPH0893316 discloses a sliding door closure system for a door (element 3) configured to slidably cover a door opening, the sliding door closure system comprising: a track (elements 11 and 2a) configured to be located adjacent to the door opening and further configured to slidably support the door; a drive wheel (considered either of element 31 or element 2B) configured to rotate in response to a relative motion between the door and the track; a generator (element 4) operatively connected to the drive wheel, the generator configured to convert a portion of kinetic energy of the door to electric energy.
JPH0893316 does not explicitly disclose use of an energy source configured to receive the electric energy produced by the generator and store the electric energy. JP2002013345, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a sliding door closure system for a door [configured to slidably cover a door opening]*, the sliding door closure system comprising: a track (element 3) [configured to be located adjacent to the door opening and further configured to slidably support the door]*; a drive wheel (element 5B) [configured to rotate in response to a relative motion between the door and the track]*; a generator (element 15) operatively connected to the drive wheel, the generator [configured to convert a portion of kinetic energy of the door to electric energy]*; and an energy source (element 32) [configured to receive the electric energy produced by the generator and store the electric energy]. 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 door system of JPH0893316 such that it includes use of an energy source configured to receive the electric energy produced by the generator and store the electric energy, since this would enable the system to store electrical energy harvested by the generator, which could then be used to power electrical devices of the system, especially in the event of power failure, which would enhance the functionality 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
Regarding claim 2, JPH0893316 discloses wherein the door closure system has an open position where the door is open and a closed position where the door is closed and wherein the generator is further configured to slow a motion of the door as the door approaches at least one of the open position or the closed position (See at least paragraph [0009], “A generator that generates electric power is provided, and the closing operation of the door is braked by using the generated braking force by the generator to prevent the closing speed of the door from increasing with the closing operation of the door”).
Regarding claim 7, JPH0893316 discloses further comprising a rack (element 2A) attached to the track, wherein the drive wheel is a gear engaged with the rack and is configured to rotate in response to a movement of the door.
Regarding claim 8, JPH0893316 discloses wherein the generator is mounted to the door such that the generator is configured to move with the door.
Regarding claim 9, Although the generator of JPH0893316 is shown as being mounted to the door, 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 door system of JPH0893316 such that the generator is mounted to a position (i.e. element 11) that remains stationary relative to the door opening and the track, since simply switching the position of elements 2A and 2B would function as intended for the purpose of JPH0893316, and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Examiner additionally 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 reverse the positions of elements 2A and 2B, 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 simply reversing the positions of two components based on particular applications would have been a predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH0893316 in view of JP2002103345 and further in view of JPH08246744.
Regarding claim 3, JPH0893316 discloses wherein the generator is a first generator, wherein the first generator is configured to slow the motion of the door as the door approaches the closed position. JPH0893316 lacks a second generator, wherein the second generator is configured to slow the motion of the door as the door approaches the open position. JPH08246744, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a sliding door with a damping device (element 2) that reduces the speed of the sliding door for both fully opening and fully closing positions (See Figures 1 and 4). 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 system of JPH0893316 such that it includes a second generator at the side of the door opposite the side shown in Figure 1 , wherein the second generator is configured to slow the motion of the door as the door approaches the open position, since the sliding door necessarily must slow and stop at an open position, in a manner similar to the closed position, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida (US 5,594,316) in view of Bonar (US 6,289,643).
Regarding claim 19, Hayashida lacks an electric striker mechanism configured to latch the door in a closed position, and wherein the electric striker mechanism is [configured to be powered by electric energy from the energy source]*. Bonar, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a sliding door with an electrically actuated locking device (element 90) including a striker (element 92). 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 door system of Hayashida such that it includes a locking device as taught by Bonar, as this would enable the sliding door to be locked in the closed position, which would be desirable for particular applications of the system, and since a locking device would increase the overall security of the door. 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 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 lock such that it is powered by electric energy from the energy source, since Hayashida discloses that the purpose of storing electrical energy in the battery is to use it (See at least column 4, lines 9-12), and therefore powering an electrical system, such as the electric lock, via stored electricity in the battery would also be logical and obvious, and 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)).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Andou (US 6,633,094) in view of Elischewski (US 5,789,887).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Andou lacks a non-transitory memory, wherein the processor is configured to record the output of one or more sensors in the non-transitory memory, and wherein the processor is additionally configured to collect and transmit data regarding at least one of the operation or condition of the sliding door closure system. Elischewski, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure an automated sliding door (Figure 24, column 11, lines 10-15) with various sensors for monitoring functionality of the door, and including a non-transitory memory, wherein a processor is [configured to record the output of one or more sensors in the non-transitory memory]*, and wherein the processor [is additionally configured to collect and transmit data regarding at least one of the operation or condition of the sliding door closure system]* (See at least column 1, lines 59-62, “one object of the present invention is to permanently record and retain the sequence of operations of an automatic door with all its parameters, as well as the signals from the connected sensors” and column 2, lines 50-67, “the fault memory is a sort of higher-level monitoring device for the entire system, which can also include, for example, the correct execution of a learning cycle. In contrast to the prior art, in which LEDs are sometimes used to indicate malfunctions or abnormalities, the fault memory provided by the invention makes possible a direct indication of the abnormality of all relevant data and parameters, both static and dynamic, in clear text… Furthermore, by means of an interface, the content of this fault memory can also be transmitted by means of a modem to a service center”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door system of Andou such that sensor data was recorded in a memory and transmitted to a service center based on operation of the system, since a detailed record of the sensor data would be valuable for monitoring operation of the door, and since transmitting the sensor data to a service center would help to ensure proper working order and functionality 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
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andou (US 6,633,094) in view of Bonar (US 6,289,643).
Regarding claim 19, Andou lacks an electric striker mechanism configured to latch the door in a closed position, and wherein the electric striker mechanism is [configured to be powered by electric energy from the energy source]*. Bonar, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a sliding door with an electrically actuated locking device (element 90) including a striker (element 92). 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 door system of Andou such that it includes a locking device, as this would enable the sliding door to be locked in the closed position, which would be desirable for particular applications of the system, and since a locking device would increase the overall security of the door. 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 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 lock to be powered by electric energy from the energy source, since Andou discloses using the electric energy from the energy source for powering at least sensor 52, and therefore powering other electrical systems, such as the electric lock, via the energy source would also be logical and obvious, and 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)).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
JP2002013345 in view of Elischewski (US 5,789,887).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, JP2002013345 lacks a non-transitory memory, wherein the processor is configured to record the output of one or more sensors in the non-transitory memory, and wherein the processor is additionally configured to collect and transmit data regarding at least one of the operation or condition of the sliding door closure system. Elischewski, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure an automated sliding door (Figure 24, column 11, lines 10-15) with various sensors for monitoring functionality of the door, and including a non-transitory memory, wherein a processor is [configured to record the output of one or more sensors in the non-transitory memory]*, and wherein the processor [is additionally configured to collect and transmit data regarding at least one of the operation or condition of the sliding door closure system]* (See at least column 1, lines 59-62, “one object of the present invention is to permanently record and retain the sequence of operations of an automatic door with all its parameters, as well as the signals from the connected sensors” and column 2, lines 50-67, “the fault memory is a sort of higher-level monitoring device for the entire system, which can also include, for example, the correct execution of a learning cycle. In contrast to the prior art, in which LEDs are sometimes used to indicate malfunctions or abnormalities, the fault memory provided by the invention makes possible a direct indication of the abnormality of all relevant data and parameters, both static and dynamic, in clear text… Furthermore, by means of an interface, the content of this fault memory can also be transmitted by means of a modem to a service center”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door system of JP2002013345 such that sensor data was recorded in a memory and transmitted to a service center based on operation of the system, since a detailed record of the sensor data would be valuable for monitoring operation of the door, and since transmitting the sensor data to a service center would help to ensure proper working order and functionality 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
Conclusion
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