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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request filed on December 15, 2025 for a Request for Continuing Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 is acceptable and an RCE has been established. Any previous finality is hereby withdrawn and a new action on the merits follows. Any newly-submitted claims have been added. An action on the RCE follows.
Drawings
The drawing correction filed September 19, 2024 has been approved.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because “upward/downward directions” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the upward/downward directions set forth above or is attempting to set forth upward/downward directions in addition to the ones set forth above.
Claim 3 is objected to because “a closing direction” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the closing direction set forth above or is attempting to set forth another closing direction in addition to the one set forth above. Note that the applicant has set forth a closing direction on line 3 of claim 5 with the language “opening/closing directions”.
Claim 3 is objected to because “in the opening/closing directions” on lines 3-4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How can a closing direction be in the opening/closing directions? It appears that the closing direction is the closing direction and is not “in” the opening/closing directions.
Claim 3 is objected to because “a closing direction” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the closing direction set forth above or is attempting to set forth another closing direction in addition to the one set forth above. Note that the applicant has set forth a closing direction on line 3 of claim 5 with the language “opening/closing directions”.
Claim 3 is objected to because “in the opening/closing directions” on lines 6-7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How can a closing direction be in the opening/closing directions? It appears that the closing direction is the closing direction and is not “in” the opening/closing directions.
Claim 4 is objected to because “an outer edge of the first door body” on line 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the outer edge of the first door body set forth above or is attempting to set forth another outer edge of the first door body in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 4 is objected to because “an outer edge of the second door body” on lines 8-9 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the outer edge of the second door body set forth above or is attempting to set forth another outer edge of the second door body in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 5 is objected to because “an opening direction” on line 17 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the opening direction set forth above or is attempting to set forth another opening direction in addition to the one set forth above. Note that the applicant has set forth an opening direction on line 3 of claim 5 with the language “opening/closing directions”.
Claim 5 is objected to because “an opening direction” on lines 20-21 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the opening direction set forth above or is attempting to set forth another opening direction in addition to the one set forth above. Note that the applicant has set forth an opening direction on line 3 of claim 5 with the language “opening/closing directions”.
Claim 5 is objected to because “and extend in the opening/closing directions” on lines 24-25 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is a duplicate recitation. See lines 6-9 of claim 5.
Claim 8 is objected to because “in the opening/closing directions” on lines 4-5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How can the opening direction be in the opening/closing directions? It appears that the opening direction is the opening direction and is not “in” the opening/closing directions.
Claim 13 is objected to because “and extend in the opening/closing directions” on lines 16-17 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is a duplicate recitation.
Claim 13 is objected to because “upward/downward directions” on line 24 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the upward/downward directions set forth above or is attempting to set forth upward/downward directions in addition to the ones set forth above.
Claim 13 is objected to because “which is” on line 24 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the upward/downward directions or the opening/closing directions.
Claim 13 is objected to because “is” on line 24 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically incorrect since the applicant is referring to the plural “directions”.
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 2-5, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2019/0242175) in view of Picatti (US 2871009).
Fujita et al. discloses a door closing apparatus comprising:
first 80A and second 80B door bodies that are configured to slide in opening/closing directions in which one of the first and second door bodies moves away from or toward another of the first and second door bodies;
a first rack 210 that is mounted on the first door body 80A and extends in the opening/closing directions;
a second rack 220 that is mounted on the second door body 80B and extends in the opening/closing directions;
a first pinion (labeled below in figure 4C) that rotatably meshes with the first rack 210;
the first pinion rotatably meshes with the second rack 220;
a first rotary electric motor 30 that is configured to rotate the first pinion to open and close the first door body 80A; and
the first rotary electric motor 30 configured to rotate the first pinion to open and close the second door body 80B;
wherein the first rack 210 and the second 220 rack face each other and extend in the opening/closing directions; and
the first pinion is interposed between the first rack 210 and the second rack 220 (claim 5);
wherein the first rack 210 is arranged to partially overlap the second rack 220 along the opening/closing directions as viewed in upward/downward directions of the first 80A and the second 80B door bodies which is orthogonal to the opening/closing directions (claim 2);
wherein the first rack 210 is arranged on an upper side of both the first door body 80A and the second door body 80B, and extends in a closing direction of the first door body 80A (labeled below) among the opening/closing directions from the first door body toward the second door body 80B; and the second rack 220 is arranged on the upper side of both the first door body 80A and the second door body 80B, and extends in a closing direction of the second door body 80B (labeled below) among the opening/closing directions from the second door body 80B toward the first door body 80A (claim 3);
wherein the first rack 210 is coupled to the first door body 80A installed on a rail car as set forth on lines 1-4 of paragraph 13, and extends in the opening/closing directions of the first door body; and the second rack 220 is coupled to the second door body 80B installed on the rail car, and extends in the opening/closing directions of the second door body (claim 10);
wherein the first rack 210 is distanced from the second rack 220 in a direction perpendicular to the opening/closing directions, i.e., the vertical direction, at a part of the first rack overlapping at least a part of the second rack (claim 11).
Fujita et al. is silent concerning a second rotary electric motor, a second pinion, a maximum amount that an end of the first rack protrudes in the opening direction of the second door body from an outer edge of the second door body is equal to or less than half a width of the second door body in the opening/closing directions, a maximum amount that an end of the second rack protrudes in the opening direction of the first door body from an outer edge of the first door body is equal to or less than half a width of the first door body in the opening/closing directions, and the first and second pinions are offset from each other in upward/downward directions or forward/backward directions orthogonal to the opening/closing directions and the upward/downward directions.
However, Picatti discloses a door closing apparatus comprising a first rotary electric motor 25 that is configured to rotate a first pinion 29 to open and close a first door body 10; and
a second rotary electric motor 25’ that is provided separately from the first rotary electric motor 25 and configured to rotate a second pinion 29’ to open and close a second door body 10’.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Fujita et al. with first and second rotary electric motors and pinions, as taught by Picatti, with a reasonable expectation of success to enable the operation of the doors at different rates, to enable the operation of one of the doors at a time, and to enable the operation of at least one of the doors if the other door should become inoperative.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the first 210 and second 220 racks of Fujita et al. with lengths such that, in a case in which the first 80A and the second 80B door bodies are in a closed state, as shown in figure 4C, a maximum amount that an end of the first rack 210 protrudes in the opening direction of the second door body 80B from an outer edge of the second door body 80B is equal to or less than half a width of the second door body in the opening/closing directions, and a maximum amount that an end of the second rack 220 protrudes in the opening direction of the first door body 80A from an outer edge of the first door body 80A is equal to or less than half a width of the first door body 80A in the opening/closing directions, with a reasonable expectation of success, to reduce the amount of space needed to mount the door closing apparatus and to reduce the cost of manufacturing the door closing apparatus.
It should be noted that the first and second pinions would be offset from each other in upward/downward directions since each of the pinions of each of the motors would have to engage either the first or second racks that are spaced vertically from each other. Additionally, each of the pinions would have to be smaller than the vertical distance between the first and second racks so as to not interfere with the other rack each pinion is not engaged with. See annotated figure 4A below.
Moreover, the applicant has failed to disclose or argue the criticality of the first and second racks extending beyond the respective second and first door bodies an amount equal to or less than half the width of the respective door body.
With respect to claim 4, wherein where the first 80A and the second 80B door bodies are in the closed state, the first rotary electric motor would be arranged above the first door body 80A at a position closer, in the opening/closing directions, to an outer edge of the first door body 80A in the closing direction of the first door body 80A than a center of the first door body as illustrated below; and the second rotary electric motor would be arranged above the second door body 80B at a position closer, in the opening/closing directions, to an outer edge of the second door body 80B in the closing direction of the second door body than a center of the second door body.
With respect to claim 12, both the first pinion and the second pinion are arranged between the first rack 210 and the second rack 220 (claim 12).
With respect to claim 14, the first pinion 29 is mounted on a rotational shaft 28 of the first rotary electric motor 25 and the second pinion 29’ is mounted on a rotational shaft 28’ of the second rotary electric motor 25’.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. in view Picatti as applied to claims 2-5, 10-12 and 14 above, and further in view of Reddy (US 5341598). Reddy discloses a door closing apparatus comprising a first controller 65 (note that figure 1 shows two motors 33 and two helical drives 40 while figure 10 shows one controller 65 for each motor and helical drive) that is configured to control a function of driving a first rotary electric motor 33; and a second controller 65 that is provided separately from the first controller 65 and configured to control a function of driving the second rotary electric motor 33 (claim 6);
a first door body detector 15 that is configured to detect a position of a first drive 40 so as to detect an opened state or the closed state of a first door body 2 (see lines 21-26 of column 5) and to provide a signal indicating the opened or closed state of the first door body 2 to the first controller 65; and a second door body detector 15 that is provided separately from the first door body detector 15 and configured to detect a position of the second drive 40 so as to detect an opened state or the closed state of a second door body 2 and to provide a signal indicating the opened or closed state of the second door body 2 to the second controller 65 (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Fujita et al., as modified above, with a control system, as taught by Reddy, with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure the proper positioning of the two doors 80A, 80B in the opened and closed positions thereof and to control the movement of the doors 80A, 80B as the doors 80A, 80B move between the opened and closed positions.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. in view of Picatti as applied to claims 2-5, 10-12 and 14 above, and further in view of Reddy (US 5341598). Reddy discloses door closing apparatus comprising a first lock 54 that is configured to limit movement of the first drive 40 so as to limit movement of the first door body 2 in the opening direction of the first door body in opening/closing directions; and a second lock 54 that is provided separately from the first lock and configured to limit movement of the second drive 40 so as to limit movement of the second door body 2 in the opening direction of the second door body in the opening/closing directions (claim 8);
further comprising a first lock detector 27 that is configured to detect a limitation of movement of the first drive 40 limited by the first lock 54; and a second lock detector 27 that is configured to detect a limitation of movement of the second drive 40 limited by the second lock 54 (claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Fujita et al., as modified above, with a locking system, as taught by Reddy, with a reasonable expectation of success to lock the doors 80A, 80B in the closed position to prevent unauthorized access.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2019/0242175) in view of Picatti (US 2871009). Fujita et al. discloses a door closing apparatus comprising:
first 80A and second 80B door bodies that are configured to slide in opening/closing directions in which one of the first 80A and second 80B door bodies moves away from or toward another of the first 80A and second 80B door bodies;
a first rack 210 that is mounted on the first door body 80A and extends in the opening/closing directions;
a second rack 220 that is mounted on the second door body 80B and extends in the second door body the opening/closing directions;
a first pinion (labeled below in figure 4C) that rotatably meshes with the first rack 210;
a first rotary electric motor 30 that is configured to rotate the first pinion to open and close the first door body 80A; and
the first rack and the second rack face each other and extend in the opening/closing directions;
the first pinion mounted on a rotational shaft of the first rotary electric motor is interposed between the first rack and the second rack; and
the first rack 210 is arranged to partially overlap the second rack 220 along the opening/closing directions as viewed in upward/downward directions of the first and second door bodies which is orthogonal to the opening/closing directions.
Fujita et al. is silent concerning first and second independent rotary motors.
However, Picatti discloses a door closing apparatus comprising a first rotary electric motor 25 that is configured to rotate a first pinion 29 to open and close a first door body 10, wherein the first pinion 29 is mounted on a rotational shaft 28 of the first rotary electric motor 25; and
a second rotary electric motor 25’ that is provided separately from the first rotary electric motor 25 and configured to rotate a second pinion 29’ to open and close a second door body 10’, wherein the second pinion 29’ is mounted on a rotational shaft 28’ of the second rotary electric motor 25’.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Fujita et al. with first and second rotary electric motors and pinions, as taught by Picatti, with a reasonable expectation of success to enable the operation of the doors at different rates, to enable the operation of one of the doors at a time, and to enable the operation of at least one of the doors if the other door should become inoperative.
It should be noted that the second pinion of the second rotary electric motor (labeled below) of Fujita et al., as modified above, would rotatably mesh with the second rack 220 and the second rotary electric motor would be provided separately from the first rotary electric motor (labeled below) and configured to rotate the second pinion to open and close the second door body 80B. Additionally, the first 29 and second 29’ pinions would be interposed between the first rack 210 and the second rack 220 and would be off set from each other in upward/downward directions since each of the pinions of each of the motors would have to engage either the first or second racks that are spaced vertically from each other. Each of the pinions would have to be smaller than the vertical distance between the first and second racks so as to not interfere with the other rack each pinion is not engaged with. See annotated figure 4A below. Finally, a whole of the first rotary electric motor (labeled below) is arranged, as viewed from front/rear directions which are perpendicular to both the opening/closing directions of the first door body and the second door body, and the upward/downward directions, between a center of an aperture (labeled below) that is closed by the first and second door bodies and a first connection portion 212 that connects the first rack 210 and the first door body 80A, and a whole of the second rotary electric motor (labeled below) is arranged, as viewed from the front/rear directions which are perpendicular to both the opening/closing directions of the first door body and the second door body, and the upward/downward directions, between the center of the aperture (labeled below) and a second connection portion 222 that connects the second rack 220 and the second door body 80B.
PNG
media_image1.png
1636
1100
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1658
1118
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that adding another motor and attendant door sensors to Fujita et al. would change the principle of the control operation of the motor control unit of Fujita et al. This is not found to be persuasive because, even if true, changing the control operation of a motor control unit is clearly within the purview of one with ordinary skill in the art.
The applicant next argues that replacing one motor with two motors is contrary to accepted wisdom in the art. This is not found to be persuasive at least because at least Picatti and Ernst (US 2022/0341227) disclose the use of two motors to drive two doors. The disclosures of Picatti and Ernst are evidence that using two motors to drive two doors is accepted wisdom in the art.
With respect to the applicant’s comments concerning claim 5, it should be noted that the examiner was merely pointing out the common sense way of providing two motors to the teachings of Fujita et al. Since the two racks of Fujita et al. are positioned one above the other, the diameters of each of the pinions of each of the motors would have to be smaller than the vertical distance between the two racks so that the pinions do not engage both racks. This is common sense and is held by those with less than ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS NOT MADE FINAL.
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 on 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