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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 08/08/2023.
Claims 1-15 are pending, where claim 1 is independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2023 has been filed on the filing date of the application. The submission is in-compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Multiple filed related applications
Applicants have filed multiple related applications. To date, some of the related applications have been allowed or under NOA and it appears that some related applications are stand pending, yet to be examined. There are plurality of co-pending related Applications (e.g. appl #18/365010, 18/363452, 17//668077 and so on) and double patenting is proper. See MPEP 804 and 1490 (VI) D:
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. See MPEP § 804 and 1490 (VI) D.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over the claim 1 of USP No. 11939809 B2 (Appl. No. 17/668077 and Pub. No. 2022/0268083 A1). The subject matter claimed in the instant application and the patent are claiming common/similar subject matter, as follows:
Instant Application No. 18/446220
USP No. 11939809 B2 (Appl. No. 17/668077 and Pub. #2022/0268083)
Title
DOOR ACTUATOR FOR A DOOR SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPERATING THE SAME
Method For Operating A Door System And Door System For Same
Claim 1. A door actuator for a door system with at least one door leaf, wherein a sensor unit is configured and connected to a control unit of the door system, wherein the approach of at least one object to the door system within a detection region is detectable by means of the sensor unit, characterized in that the control unit is designed to:
provide to the sensor unit deactivation data for deactivating the detection of the at least one object in at least one defined partial region of the detection region and/or
hide, delete and/or filter out object data, detected by the sensor unit, of at least one detected object in a defined partial region.
1. A method for operating a door system, wherein the door system has at least one door leaf, and wherein a sensor unit is configured and connected to a control unit of the door system wherein the approach of a person to the door system is detected by the sensor unit, wherein the method includes at least the following steps:
detecting an approach angle of the person, at which the person approaches the door system, and opening the at least one door leaf at an opening width and/or at an opening speed, wherein the maximum opening width and/or the maximum opening speed is determined by the control unit as a function of the detected approach angle of the person.
Claims 2-15 are also obvious to the claims 1-15 of the U.S. Patent No. 11939809 B2 (Appl. No. 17/668077 and Pub. No. 2022/0268083 A1).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other (as shown in the table for comparison) because they are conceptually or inherently similar to the limitations of the patent (as for example the limitation “sensor unit deactivation data for deactivating the detection of the at least one object in at least one defined partial region of the detection region” of the application is equivalent to the limitation “approach of a person to the door system is detected by the sensor unit - detecting an approach angle of the person, at which the person approaches the door system” of the patent) in scope and they use the similar limitations and produce the similar end result of controlling the door system.
It would be therefore obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made that to modify or to omit the additional elements of claim 1 of the patent to arrive at the claim 1 of the instant application, would perform the similar functions as before.
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. A terminal disclaimer is required to overcome the obviousness-type double patenting rejection. See MPEP § 804 and 1490 (VI) D:
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 9, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11, 7, 9, 14 and 15 recite the terminology "and/or", what is actually being performed by the alternatively claimed language. However, it will be assumed "or” for the purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
a) Claims 3, 4, 6 and 10 recite the limitation "the movement region" of claim 3 in line 3, "a movement region" of claim 4 in line 4, "movement region" of claim 6 in line 5, "the movement region" of claim 10 in line 5 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, first one in claim 3 will be assumed “a movement region” and others would be "the movement region". See MPEP 2173.05(e).
b) Claims 7-8 recite the limitation “time-varying manner” or “configured in such manner so as to”. The limitation terms “manner” or “in such manner so as” represents the term “type” which renders the claim indefinite and it is a broad term, thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception: The claim(s) recite(s). “door actuator, control unit, detection region is detectable by means of the sensor unit”, “deactivating the detection of object in defined partial region of the detection region” or “hide, delete or filter out object data, detected by the sensor unit, of at least one detected object in a defined partial region”, as explained in detail below.
Claim 1: Ineligible
Step 1: The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process. Thus, the claim is directed to the same as a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: Yes).
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine directed to a judicial exception.
Under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), whether the claim recites:
any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) ("Step 2A, Prong One"); and
additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ("Step 2A, Prong Two").
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception with the step of “door actuator, control unit, detection region is detectable by means of the sensor unit”, “deactivating the detection of object in defined partial region of the detection region” or “hide, delete and/or filter out object data, detected by the sensor unit, of detected object in a defined partial region”, as explained in detail below.
The limitations “door actuator, control unit, detection region is detectable by means of the sensor unit” are structures and “deactivating the detection of object in defined partial region of the detection region” or “hide, delete and/or filter out object data, detected by the sensor unit, of detected object in a defined partial region" are observations, and therefore recite a mental process, such as an evaluation and judgement.
This steps, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers (Mental processes: the concept performed in human such as observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, etc.) of patent eligibility grouping. Thus, the claim recites in a group of mental processes. The claim, therefore, recites in a group of a mental process.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of a judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one: Yes).
Step 2A Prong two:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of “deactivating the detection of object in defined partial region of the detection region” or “hide, delete or filter out object data, detected by the sensor unit, of detected object in a defined partial region” based on data/information collection and change functions that do not add meaningful limitations sufficient amount to significantly more (“inventive concept”) than the judicial exception, that merely further limiting the scope of abstract ideas or stating merely technical environment of these abstract ideas and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
This exception is not significant into a practical application of the exception and based on the recited additional elements of the claims (Step 2A Prong two: No).
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2B: In addition to the steps that describe the abstract idea of “door actuator, control unit, detection region is detectable by means of the sensor unit”, the claim recites the additional limitation of obtaining and data interpretation for door system. This additional element taken individually represents a general-purpose data collection for door system, as evidence discussed in the background [paragraph 0003-04] “operating an automatic door system which has a door actuator connected to a door leaf - radar movement detectors are used to actuate the door movement for automatic sliding doors - sensor units are proposed which cooperate with a control unit and the control unit can be actuated using sensor data such that the door system is optimally operated”. This is analogous to such concepts identified by the courts as abstract, such as collection, analysis and display information in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, (671 F.3d 1317, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) and the “manipulation of data to generate additional datasets”. The additional elements obtaining data for door system are mainly based on data/information collection and data interpretation that are not sufficient amount to significantly more (“inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. The claim recites generic computer process of door system. As such, the claim is directed to a judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim is ineligible for patenting. (Step 2B: No)
As to the dependent claims 2-15, reciting the similar elements and/or similar limitations in door system, which does not rise to a level of significantly more than the abstract idea, and are accordingly not eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauri, et al. USPGPub No. 20230193685 A1.
As to claims 1 and 14-15, Hauri discloses A door actuator for a door system with at least one door leaf, wherein a sensor unit is configured and connected to a control unit of the door system, wherein the approach of at least one object to the door system within a detection region is detectable by means of the sensor unit (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9), characterized in that the control unit is designed to:
provide to the sensor unit deactivation data for deactivating the detection of the at least one object in at least one defined partial region of the detection region and/or
hide, delete and/or filter out object data, detected by the sensor unit, of at least one detected object in a defined partial region (Hauri [0001-48] “opening and closing the doorway - adjusted individually and independently of one another between their closed position and their open position - moved in the open position only to the extent that an object, in accordance with its outer contour, moved through the door in a collision-free manner through the door or can move in a collision-free manner - two or more sliding door leaves asymmetrically adjusted in the open position - in the region in which an object actually moving through the door opening region - an object approaching the door pass through the door in a collision-free manner in accordance with its width - depending on a moved object detected in a monitoring region, the door is opened, and after lapse of a time control it is closed again, provided no object situated in the monitored region - carry out the opening movement and/or the closing movement of a one-leaf or multiple-leaf door at least in a time and/or movement period - depending on the position of a detected moved object and/or the direction of movement of the detected object - depending on the width and/or contour of the object/objects moving through the door and/or its relative position with respect to the at least one or the multiple leaves or door leaves - carry out the opening movement and/or closing movement depending on the detected object, in such a manner that the respective degree and/or the respective extent of the opening movement and/or the closing movement in at least in a time and/or movement period, occurs depending on the effective or current width, size and/or contour or overall contour with respect to the door opening region of an object moving through the door opening region - effective or current width, size and/or contour or overall contour with respect to the door opening region changes during the movement process of the object through the door opening region” [0070-123] “movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [abstract] see Fig. 1-9, plurality of sensors, control and evaluation device, monitoring region, movement direction, object width size and its contour, detected monitored object signal received with operating principle to move through the door in a collision-free manner obviously provides sensor unit deactivation data for deactivating the detection of the object in defined partial region of the detection region).
It would be therefore obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that plurality of sensors, control and evaluation device, monitoring region, movement direction, object width size and its contour, detected monitored object signal received with operating principle to move through the door in a collision-free manner are assumed as sensor unit deactivation data for deactivating the detection of the object in defined partial region of the detection region.
As to claim 2, Hauri further discloses The door actuator according to claim 1, wherein a computer unit is configured for processing the object data, wherein the computer unit is designed as part of the sensor unit or as part of the control unit (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9, control and evaluation device, separately actuatable door leaf, separate drive device, multiple sensors obviously provides the limitations).
As to claim 3, Hauri further discloses The door actuator according to claim 1, wherein the defined partial region comprises or is limited to the movement region of the at least one door leaf (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9, control and evaluation device, monitoring region, movement direction, separately actuatable door leaf, separate drive device, multiple sensors obviously provides the limitations).
As to claim 4, Hauri further discloses The door actuator according to claim 1, wherein the defined partial region comprises a movement region of an external element (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9, control and evaluation device, monitoring region, movement direction, separately actuatable door leaf, separate drive device, multiple sensors obviously provides the limitations).
As to claim 5, Hauri further discloses The door actuator according to claim 1, wherein the sensor unit is configured to capture only object data from moving objects or to provide object data to the control unit (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9, control and evaluation device, monitoring region, movement direction, separately actuatable door leaf, separate drive device, multiple sensors obviously provides the limitations).
As to claim 6, Hauri further discloses The door actuator according to claim 1, wherein the defined partial region is designed to be static, wherein the defined partial region corresponds to the complete movement region of the at least one door leaf (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9, control and evaluation device, monitoring region, movement direction, separately actuatable door leaf, separate drive device, multiple sensors obviously provides the limitations).
As to claim 7, Hauri further discloses The door actuator according to claim 1, wherein the defined partial region is designed to be dynamic such that the defined partial region is configured to change in a time-varying manner in relation to its size and/or position within the detection region (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9, control and evaluation device, monitoring region, movement direction, separately actuatable door leaf, separate drive device, multiple sensors obviously provides the limitations).
As to claim 8, Hauri further discloses The door actuator according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is designed and configured in such manner so as to determine the position of the at least one door leaf in order to dynamically adapt the defined partial region to the position of the door leaf (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9, control and evaluation device, monitoring region, movement direction, separately actuatable door leaf, separate drive device, multiple sensors obviously provides the limitations).
As to claim 9, Hauri further discloses The door actuator according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the travel direction of the at least one door leaf in order to dynamically adapt the defined partial region, when the at least one door leaf moves in the closing direction, to place the partial region into the door leaf inner region and/or, when the at least one door leaf moves in the opening direction, to place the partial region into the door leaf outer region (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9, control and evaluation device, monitoring region, movement direction, separately actuatable door leaf, separate drive device, multiple sensors obviously provides the limitations).
As to claim 10, Hauri further discloses The door actuator according to claim 1, wherein the door actuator is designed to open a further door leaf and wherein the defined partial region comprises the movement region of the further door leaf or is formed thereby (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9, control and evaluation device, monitoring region, movement direction, separately actuatable door leaf, separate drive device, multiple sensors obviously provides the limitations).
As to claim 11, Hauri further discloses The door actuator according to claim 10, wherein the detection region is formed on a hinge side of the at least one door leaf (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9).
As to claim 12, Hauri further discloses The door actuator according to claim 1, wherein the at least one door leaf is designed as a rotary leaf and performs a pivoting movement, wherein the pivoting region forms the defined partial region (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9, control and evaluation device, monitoring region, movement direction, separately actuatable door leaf, separate drive device, multiple sensors obviously provides the limitations).
As to claim 13, Hauri further discloses A door system with a door actuator according to claim 1, comprising at least one door leaf (Hauri [0070-123] “separately actuatable door leaf, a separate drive device 7a or 7b - respective motor 8a, 8b - each leaf separately from the other separately actuated and moved - independently of the respective other sliding door leaf - movable door leaves 1a, 1b, a sensor device 9 - include multiple sensors - acquisition sensor or distance sensor and acquire - “Time of Flight” sensors - control and/or evaluation device 11, via an acquisition sensor - detected in the monitoring region in relation to the door or to the respective door leaf but also its movement direction - width, size and/or its contour acquired - in sliding or folding doors, the contour in relation to the door leaf plane - monitored object to be detected in order to then finally acquire from the received signal - including their operating principle” [0001-48] [abstract] see Fig. 1-9).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2141.02 VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, i.e., as a whole and 2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record:
Soderqvist, USPGPub No. 2022/0298845 A1 discloses an entrance systems having a swing door member and an automatic door operator for causing movement of the swing door member.
Agam, et al. USPGPub No. 2013/0263511 A1 discloses a method to detect the presence of a person or object at the entrance of an automatic door or a pedestrian sliding door includes infrared (IR) and/or microwave detector to detect a person moves towards the entrance and sense the motion coming from the objects to be detected.
Dreyer, USPGPub No. 2022/0178188 A1 discloses a system for moving a swing door leaf between closed and open position and regulating swing door.
Sasaki, et al. USPGPub No. 2019/0360256 A1 discloses a detection area in accordance with an activation detection algorithm for detecting a person or an object in accordance with a protection detection algorithm having a higher detection sensitivity for the person or the object than the activation detection algorithm performed for individual output to automatic door device.
Hass, et al. USPGPub No. 2021/0065489 A1 discloses a door system with smart authentication and activation utilizing a smart wireless communication to access and set operating parameters and sensors to authenticate and activate or deactivate the door systems.
Lee, et. al. USPGPub No. 2013/0259306 A1 discloses an automatic revolving door control method includes camera and TOF technology of the objects captured in the images and determines the moving direction of the person being monitored is toward the entrance and moved distance and moving speed of the person being monitored to rotate the automatic revolving door at a speed to match that of the person being monitored.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Md Azad whose telephone @(571)272-0553 or email: md.azad@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Md Azad/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119