DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on September 12, 2025. Claims 1-5 have been amended. Claim 6 has been newly added. No claims have been newly cancelled. Accordingly, Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on September 12, 2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of new claim 6, a new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been added.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on September 12, 2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered.
Regarding the statement that Kim does not teach “setting a detection area of a sensor to have a shape corresponding to a frequency of people passing an area equal to or smaller than a predetermined frequency” (Remarks, Pg. 7), while Kim teaches features that would reasonably allow setting a path exclusive for mobile robots in the detection areas for automatic doors (Paragraph 0091, “The connecting space 520 refers to an element that is connected to another space and may include a door 521, a corridor 522…The door 521 may include…an automatic door…A robot lane, that is, a robot-only lane may be included as a portion of the corridor 52”), the examiner agrees that the prior art does not appear to explicitly teach the amended subject matter of actively setting the detection area. However, upon further search and consideration, the examiner found newly cited art Siewert et al. (US20190169908A1) and Samuel et al. (DE102008008142B4) to teach the amended limitations and is reflected in the updated claim mapping further below.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “…in an area where the frequency of people passing is the smallest”. The term “smallest” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation is considered unclear because the area can be based on different sizes or timespans (e.g. a certain sized area over a certain period with the least amount of passerby). According to the examiner’s best knowledge and consistent with the parent claim, the limitation will be treated as an area in which the frequency of people passing is equal to or smaller than a predetermined frequency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkelmann et al. (US20240133226A1, foreign priority to August 12, 2022; hereinafter Winkelmann) in view of Fukui (US20200072619A1; hereinafter Fukui) and further in view of Siewert et al. (US20190169908A1; hereinafter Siewert).
Regarding Claim 1, Winkelmann discloses a method for operating an automatic door (Abstract) comprising:
an automatic door including a sensor configured to detect an object that has entered a predetermined detection area of the sensor (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0053 describes a door system including an automatic door (“door leaf 10”) and a sensor (“sensor unit 13”); Paragraph 0054 describes a predetermined detection area of the sensor for objects (“The sensor unit 13 spans a detection region 16 in front of the door system 100”));
wherein the predetermined detection area includes a first detection area for a passerby and a second detection area for the autonomous mobile robot (Paragraph 0054 describes the detection area being partitioned into two partial regions (“…said detection region has a first partial region R and a second partial region L”) which is reasonably indicative of regions that can be used to detect a passerby and an autonomous mobile robot; Examiner notes that as currently claimed, a detection area intended for an autonomous mobile robot broadly comprises an area where an autonomous mobile robot could be detected, which is consistent with the instant specification (see Page 8, Lines 9-12, “While the first partial detection area 510 is a detection area for mainly detecting the autonomous mobile robot 10, an object other than the autonomous mobile robot 10…will also be detected”)).
However, Winkelmann does not explicitly disclose: an autonomous mobile robot and the autonomous mobile robot passes through the automatic door via the second detection area for the autonomous mobile robot.
Nevertheless, Fukui teaches an environment for facilitating movement between autonomous mobile robots and people (Abstract) comprising:
an autonomous mobile robot (Paragraph 0028, “…autonomous mobile bodies 4 is provided so as to be able to autonomously travel. For example, the plurality of autonomous mobile bodies 4 are provided so as to be able to get into and out of the car of the elevator 1”);
and the autonomous mobile robot passes through the automatic door via the second detection area for the autonomous mobile robot (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0043-0046 describes dynamic map information which comprises a detection area for detecting autonomous mobile robots (detecting “autonomous mobile bodies 4” corresponds to detected area “4a”) and people (detecting “person 13” corresponds to detected area “13a”); Paragraphs 0054-0058 describe an autonomous mobile robot traveling through an automatic door based on the dynamic map information (“When the car arrives at the floor and the door of the elevator 1 opens…causes the autonomous mobile body 4 to travel inside the car on the basis of the dynamic map information”) which is reasonably indicative of traveling via a detected area for the autonomous mobile robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Winkelmann invention to incorporate the teachings of Fukui by including features that allow the automatic door to be used in an environment with autonomous mobile robots. Particularly because Winkelmann relates to an automatic door environment and Fukui also relates to an automatic door environment (Fukui, Paragraph 0028). Fukui teaches that the automatic door environment may include autonomous mobile robots and provides features that allow autonomous mobile robots to travel through an automatic door via a detection area. It would be desirable to incorporate these features for the benefit of improving safety within the environment (Fukui, Paragraph 0041).
However, Winkelmann as currently modified still does not explicitly teach: the second detection area for the autonomous mobile robot is set to have a predetermined shape to include an area in which a frequency of people passing is equal to or smaller than a predetermined frequency.
Nevertheless, Siewert teaches features for adjusting the detection range of different areas around an automatic door based on the type of object expected in the given area (Abstract and Paragraph 0069, “Defining a threshold distance is necessary for the controller to be able to distinguish between accidental obstacles and non-accidental obstacles. A non-accidental obstacle is an obstacle which presence at a given position is expected…”) comprising:
the second detection area for the autonomous mobile robot is set to have a predetermined shape to include an area through which a frequency of people passing is equal to or smaller than a predetermined frequency (Figure 10 and Paragraph 0084 describes setting different detection ranges (e.g. Figure 10 shows one side/area has a range of 0m to -1m and another side/area has a range of 0m to over +2m) based on where vehicles/robots and people are expected to traverse (“Asymmetrical spans can be useful depending on the direction of the main traffic of moving objects (such as vehicles, robots, etc.) or persons”); Examiner notes that determining a threshold distance to set an area where vehicles/robots and people are expected to traverse reasonably indicate an area where a frequency of people passing is equal to or smaller than a predetermined frequency (e.g. area of expected vehicle/robot traffic is different from area where people would be expected); Examiner further notes that a detection area with a predetermined range is indicative of a predetermined shape (e.g. predefined limits for the sensor range delineates a detection shape)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Winkelmann invention to expand the features for asymmetrically setting up the first and second detection regions (Paragraph 0058, “The division of the detection region into the right partial region R and into the left partial region L is preferably laterally symmetrical, with it also being conceivable, in deviation from the symmetry, that a larger and a smaller partial region R and L is determined”) to include setting asymmetrical detection spans based on the type of object expected to enter a given area, as taught by Siewert, for the benefit of distinguishing between expected and unexpected objects (Siewert, Paragraph 0069, “A non-accidental obstacle is an obstacle which presence at a given position is expected…”).
Regarding Claim 3, Winkelmann as currently modified teaches claim 1. Winkelmann further discloses:
wherein the second detection area for the autonomous mobile robot is an area which is along at least one of walls on both sides of the automatic door (Paragraph 0005 describes the door system (“door system 100” which includes an automatic “door leaf 10”) as being along at least a wall; Figure 4 shows the detection regions as being along at least one of the walls on both sides of the automatic door).
Regarding Claim 4, Winkelmann as currently modified teaches claim 3. Winkelmann further discloses:
wherein the second detection area for the autonomous mobile robot is an area which is along a second wall, which is different from a first wall that is adjacent to an opening of the automatic door that is generated after the automatic door starts to open, the first wall and the second wall being walls on both sides of the automatic door (Figure 4 shows the detection regions as being along a wall on only one side of the automatic door).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkelmann in view of Fukui, Siewert and Sasaki et al. (US20190360256A1; hereinafter Sasaki).
Regarding Claim 2, Winkelmann as currently modified teaches claim 1. Winkelmann further discloses:
wherein the second detection area for the autonomous mobile robot covers a range farther than a range covered by the first detection area for the passerby with respect to the position of the automatic door (Winkelmann, Paragraph 0058 describes the two detection regions as having different sizes, wherein one partial detection region may be larger (“…it also being conceivable, in deviation from the symmetry, that a larger and a smaller partial region R and L is determined”); Examiner notes that a partial detection region that is larger is reasonably indicative of a detection area range for the autonomous mobile robot that is farther).
However Winkelmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is provided in an upper part of the automatic door, wherein the sensor emits light beams to the predetermined detection area, measures a reflected light of the light beams, and detects an object that has entered the predetermined detection area.
Nevertheless, Sasaki teaches an automatic door system (Abstract) comprising:
wherein the sensor is provided in an upper part of the automatic door, wherein the sensor emits light beams to the predetermined detection area, measures a reflected light of the light beams, and detects an object that has entered the predetermined detection area (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0056 shows a sensor (“automatic door sensor 3”) provided in an upper part of an automatic door; Paragraphs 0067-0068 describes the sensor as emitting light beams (“emit near infrared light”) and receiving reflected light beams (“receive reflected light”) for detecting an object has entered a predetermined detection area (“Based on the selected sensing signal of the effective detection area, the sensor control unit 32 detects a person or an object”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Winkelmann invention to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki by including features that allow the use of an infrared sensor situated in an upper part of an automatic door. Particularly because Winkelmann as currently modified relates to an automatic door environment and Sasaki also relates to an automatic door environment. Sasaki further teaches that the automatic door environment includes the use of an infrared sensor. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature for the benefit of improving granularity of a detection region and improving safety within the environment (Sasaki, Paragraph 0005).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkelmann in view of Fukui, Siewert and Xiao et al. (CN114169826A; hereinafter Xiao).
Regarding Claim 5, Winkelmann as currently modified teaches claim 1. Winkelmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the autonomous mobile robot temporarily suspends a movement for the autonomous mobile robot to pass through the automatic door based on determining there is a person in an area within a predetermined distance from the autonomous mobile robot in the space behind the automatic door after the automatic door opens (Examiner notes that as currently claimed, the limitation “the space behind the automatic door after the automatic door opens” is being interpreted to broadly comprise a moving path of the autonomous mobile robot, which is consistent with the instant specification (see at least Paragraph 0059, “…the second space 52 (the space behind the automatic door 20 when seen from the autonomous mobile robot 10), which is the moving path when the autonomous mobile robot 10 passes through the automatic door 20”)).
Nevertheless, Xiao teaches a method for operating a service robot in a human environment (Page 6, Paragraph 0023 of the attached English translation, “within an office area”) comprising :
wherein the autonomous mobile robot temporarily suspends a movement for the autonomous mobile robot to pass through the automatic door based on determining there is a person in an area within a predetermined distance from the autonomous mobile robot in the space behind the automatic door after the automatic door opens (Page 10, Paragraph 0036 of the attached English translation describes temporarily suspending the movement of a service robot in an passageway (“…when it is detected that the distance between the person and the service robot is less than the preset distance, the service robot stops and waits…”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Winkelmann invention to incorporate the teachings of Xiao by including features that allow an autonomous mobile robot to temporarily suspend its movement when detecting a person within a preset distance. It would be desirable to incorporate these features for the motivating benefit of reducing interference with people in the environment (Xiao, Paragraph 0036).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkelmann in view of Fukui, Siewert and Samuel et al. (DE102008008142B4; hereinafter Samuel).
Regarding Claim 6, Winkelmann as currently modified teaches claim 1. While Winkelmann as currently modified teaches wherein [parts of] the predetermined shape is in an area where the frequency of people passing is the smallest (Siewert, Paragraph 0084 describes setting asymmetrical areas based on where vehicles/robots and people are expected to traverse (“Asymmetrical spans can be useful depending on the direction of the main traffic of moving objects (such as vehicles, robots, etc.) or persons”): Examiner notes that defining a threshold distance to distinguish areas where vehicles/robots and people are not expected to traverse reasonably indicate areas where a frequency of people passing is equal to or smaller than a predetermined frequency; Also see 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), Winkelmann as currently modified does not explicitly teach: wherein the predetermined shape of the second detection area includes a protruded part that extends farther away from the sensor than the first detection area.
Nevertheless, Samuel teaches setting up two detection areas for automatic doors (see at least Abstract) comprising:
wherein the predetermined shape of the second detection area includes a protruded part that extends farther away from the sensor than the first detection area (Page 12, Paragraph 0046 of the attached English translation, “While the wider radar field 19' extends with greater longitudinal extent parallel to the door area to be monitored, the second radar field 19" is narrower and, viewed from the plane of the door leaves, radiates further forward, thus reaching into an area that is even further away from the position of the sliding doors”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Winkelmann invention to expand the features for asymmetrically setting up the first and second detection regions (Paragraph 0058) to include a protruded part, as taught by Samuel, for the benefit of designing the detection zones to better align with user preferences.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669