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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on October 21, 2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 7, 8, 10 and 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 21, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the applicant has failed to set forth the following reference characters in the drawings: 3’, 4’ and 3’’. As an example, the drawings include the reference character 3 with ‘ underneath the 3. This appears to be referring to 3’, however, this is not a proper representation of the reference character 3’. The same problem occurs with reference characters 4’ and 3’’.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “3” has been used to designate both a swinging door leaf in figure 1A and a sliding door leaf in figure 5A. Although, the reference characters refer to the same general structure, i.e., a door leaf, the door leaves are different and, therefore, require different reference characters. Also see reference characters 3’, 4, 5, 5.’
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[t]he use of the safety device in a door drive with a drive unit for moving, or in a door system with, the associated door leaf an automated door system, and an operating method for the door system are also related” on lines 9-13 is grammatically incorrect and confusing. It is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the references to the claims in the specification should be avoided since the content of the claims invariable changes during prosecution and the numbering of the claims often changes during prosecution. For example, see “claim 1” on line 5 of page 3, “claim 6” on line 6 of page 3 and “claim 11” on line 7 of page 3.
The disclosure is objected to because the description of figures 1a-1b on lines 33-34 of page 8 is inadequate. Each of the figures requires its own description. Additionally, the drawings fail to include a figure 1a or a figure 1b. See the first sheet of the drawings which includes figures 1A and 1B.
The disclosure is objected to because the description of figures 2a-2b on line 35 of page 8 to line 1 of page 9 is inadequate. Each of the figures requires its own description. Additionally, the drawings fail to include a figure 2a or a figure 2b. See the first sheet of the drawings which includes figures 2A and 2B.
The disclosure is objected to because the description of figures 5a-5d on lines 6-7 of page 9 is inadequate. Each of the figures requires its own description. Additionally, the drawings fail to include figures 5a, 5b, 5c or 5d. See the third sheet of the drawings which includes figures 5A, 5B, 5C or 5D.
The disclosure is objected to because the applicant refers to figure 1 on line 23 of page 9, however, the drawings fail to include a figure 1. See the first sheet of the drawings which includes figures 1A and 1B rather than figure 1. Also see figure 2 on line 13 of page 10, figure 3 on line 26 of page 10, figure 4 on line 11 of page 11, and figure 5 on line 15 of page 11.
The disclosure is objected to because the applicant refers to figure 1a on line 24 of page 9, however, the drawings include figure 1A rather than figure 1a. Also see figure 1b on line 25 of page 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because they fail to further limit the independent claim 1 from which they depend. Note that the examiner has chosen the first option of the operation of the control device. Accordingly, the further limitations in claims 3 and 4 directed to the second option of the operation of the control device fail to limit claim 1.
Claim 1 is objected to because “adapted to” on line 14 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What does adapting the braking force or the braking distance of the door leaf to the current movement speed of the door leaf entail? How are the braking force and the braking distance adapted?
Claim 2 is objected to because “its” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because possessive pronouns such as “its” should be replaced with the name of the element to which the pronoun refers to avoid confusion.
Claim 4 is objected to because “adapted to” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What does adapting the braking force or the braking distance of the door leaf to the current movement speed of the door leaf entail? How are the braking force and the braking distance adapted?
Claim 5 is objected to because “a safety device” on line 1 should be changed to
--the safety device-- to clearly set forth that the applicant is referring to the safety device set forth in claim 1.
Claim 5 is objected to because “the at least one associated door leaf” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because the applicant has failed to set forth “at least one” associated door leaf above. See claim 1 where the applicant only sets forth an associated door leaf.
Claim 5 is objected to because “a door system” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because claim 1 sets forth “an automated door system” on line 1. Since the applicant has used the short hand method of incorporating all of the limitations of claim 1 into claim 5, there are two recitations of a door system, one on line 1 of claim 1 and one on lines 2-3 of claim 5. Thus, it is unclear if the applicant is setting forth two door systems or is setting forth one door system.
Claim 5 is objected to because “the at least one associated door leaf” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because the applicant has failed to set forth “at least one” associated door leaf above. See claim 1 where the applicant only sets forth an associated door leaf.
Claim 6 is objected to because “[a]n automated door system” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because claim 1 sets forth an automated door system on line 1. Since the applicant has used the short hand method of incorporating all of the limitations of claim 1 into claim 6, there are two recitations of an automated door system, one on line 1 of claim 1 and one on line 1 of claim 6. Thus, it is unclear if the applicant is setting forth two automated door systems or is setting forth one automated door system.
Claim 6 is objected to because “a safety device” on line 6 should be changed to
--the safety device-- to clearly set forth that the applicant is referring to the safety device set forth in claim 1.
Claim 9 is objected to because “a door leaf” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door leaf set forth above or is attempting to set forth another door leaf in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 9 is objected to because “designed as” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the door leaf is actually a swing door leaf or merely designed to be a swing door leaf. Note that just because something is designed to perform a specific task does not mean that it actually can perform said task.
Claim 9 is objected to because “its” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because possessive pronouns such as “its” should be replaced with the name of the element to which the pronoun refers to avoid confusion.
Claim 9 is objected to because “the movement direction” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Note that the swing door moves in two different directions, one to open the door leaf and one to close the door leaf. Thus, it is unclear to which of the movement directions of the swing door leaf the applicant is referring.
Claim 11 is objected to because “a door system” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because “a door system” should be changed to --the door system-- to clearly refer to the door system set forth above.
Claim 11 is objected to because “adapting” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What does adapting the detection region of the door leaf on the basis of a current movement speed of the door leaf entail? What is the detection region of the door leaf adapted to? What characteristics of the detection region are changed in order to adapt the detection region of the door leaf on the basis of a current speed of the door leaf?
Claim 11 is objected to because “a current movement speed” on lines 5-6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the current movement speed set forth in claim 1 or is attempting to set forth another current movement speed in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 11 is objected to because “a detection geometry” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the detection geometry set forth in claim 1 or is attempting to set forth another detection geometry in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 11 is objected to because “a door drive” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the door drive set forth in claim 1 or is attempting to set forth another door drive in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 11 is objected to because “a predetermined movement speed” on line 8 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the predetermined movement speed set forth in claim 1 or is attempting to set forth another predetermined movement speed in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 11 is objected to because “a braking force” on line 9 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the braking force set forth in claim 1 or is attempting to set forth another braking force in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 11 is objected to because “a braking distance” on line 10 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the braking distance set forth in claim 1 or is attempting to set forth another braking distance in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 11 is objected to because “adapted to” on line 10 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What does adapting the braking force or the braking distance of the door leaf to the current movement speed of the door leaf entail? How are the braking force and the braking distance adapted?
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 5, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenthal et al. (US 2025/0320762) in view of Dickmann et al. (US 2004/0200149). Rosenthal et al. discloses a safety device for an automated door system 110, the safety device comprising:
a sensor device 500 (fig. 5), designed to be arranged on the door system 110 (see lines 1-2 of paragraph 64) such that an associated detection region of the sensor device 500 covers a danger region of an associated door leaf 120 using sensors 510 (fig. 5), and configured to detect the presence of an object within the associated detection region, and
a control device 530,
wherein the control device 530 is configured
to change the associated detection region on the basis of a current position of the associated door leaf, as set forth on lines 11-15 of paragraph 63 and/or
to determine a detection geometry and to actuate a door drive of the associated door leaf such that a predetermined movement speed of the associated door leaf is provided depending on the determined detection geometry and/or a braking force and/or a braking distance of the associated door
leaf is or are adapted to the current movement speed of the associated door leaf (note that the examiner has chosen the first of the two options set forth in claim 1) (claim 1);
wherein the changing of the detection region of the sensor device 500 is implemented in that the sensor device 500 has an adjustment device 520 which is coupled to the control device 530 such that the control device 530 is able to adjust the sensor device 500 such that its detection region changes (claim 2);
in a door drive 160 with at least one drive unit 162 for moving the at least one associated door leaf 120 or in a door system with the at least one associated door leaf (claim 5).
Rosenthal et al. is silent concerning changing the associated detection region on the basis of a current movement speed of the associated door leaf.
However, Dickmann et al. discloses a safety device 1 which utilizes the concept of changing an associated detection region on the basis of a movement speed of an associated door leaf as set forth on lines 1-17 of paragraph 23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rosenthal et al. to utilize the movement speed of the associated door leaf to change the associated detection region, as taught by Dickmann et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to more accurately adjust the detection region to ensure that an object is detected before impacting with the door leaf.
With respect to claim 6, Rosenthal et al. further discloses at least one door leaf 120 and for the at least one door leaf 120, a door drive movement 162 operatively connected to the at least one door leaf 120, wherein a safety device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one door leaf 120 is the associated door leaf 120 as set forth on lines 1-2 of paragraph 64.
With respect to claim 9, a door leaf 120 is designed as a swing door leaf (note that the door leaf 120 swings during at least part of its movement between the open and closed positions) and the danger region of the swing door leaf 120 is a predetermined part of a region which the swing door leaf covers during its opening and closing movement and which is located in front of the swing door leaf in the movement direction of the swing door leaf (note that the sensor 510 is mounted on the door leaf 120 as set forth on lines 1-2 of paragraph 64 and are used to determine if an object is in an hazardous area which would be in front of the swinging door leaf).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenthal et al. (US 2025/0320762) in view of Dickmann et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 above.
Rosenthal et al. discloses the steps of operating a door system according to claim 6, the method including the following steps: monitoring the danger region of the associated door leaf 120 by the sensor device 500 and further including: adapting the detection region of the associated door leaf on the basis of a current movement speed of the associated door leaf 120 and/or, determining a detection geometry and actuating a door drive of the associated door leaf such that a predetermined movement speed of the associated door leaf is provided depending on the determined detection geometry and/or a braking force and/or a braking distance of the associated door leaf is or are adapted to the current movement speed of the associated door leaf. It should be noted that the examiner has chosen the first of the two options set forth in claim 11.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights