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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/492,057 filed on 10/23/2023.
Claims 2 and 13 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 07/13/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 29th, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (January 7, 2019).
Step One: Does the Claim Fall Within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 is directed towards a diagnostic apparatus (machine). Dependent claims 3-10 are also directed towards a diagnostic apparatus (machine). Claim 11 is directed towards a diagnostic system (machine). Finally, claim 12 is directed towards a diagnostic method (process).
Step Two A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Taking into account claim 12 as one example, the claim recites acquiring first data related to an operation of a door during at least one of an opening operation or a closing operation and diagnosing, based on the acquired first data, an abnormality in a fastening mechanism including a fastening plate provided at a door panel and configured to fasten the door panel to a drive mechanism by fastening the fastening plate to a connection portion in a rack of the drive mechanism that opens or closes the door panel, wherein the acquired first data includes second data related to at least one of an accelerated state or a decelerated state of the door, and wherein the diagnosing of the abnormality in the fastening mechanism is performed based on the second data. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a mechanic inspecting a door of a vehicle, running a diagnosis by inputting the door’s specifications into a diagnosis display in order to determine a malfunction of the door, receiving a message on the display regarding a certain error, and alerting a driver of the vehicle about the door’s malfunction. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step Two A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. Claims 1 and 11 recite three additional elements – a drive mechanism, a fastening mechanism, and circuitry. All three elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic drive mechanism, fastening mechanism, and circuitry. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
On the other hand, claims 1 and 11 recite the additional elements of a drive mechanism including a rack that includes a connection portion, the drive mechanism being configured to open or close a door panel and a fastening mechanism including a fastening plate provided at the door panel, the fastening mechanism being configured to fasten the door panel to the drive mechanism by fastening the fastening plate to the connection portion.
The opening, closing, and fastening steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as general means of transmitting and receiving data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity.
Claim 12 recites two additional elements – a fastening mechanism and a drive mechanism. Both elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic fastening mechanism and drive mechanism. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
This type of abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 3-12 is a mental process.
Step Two B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept
No. Regarding claims 1 and 11, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a drive mechanism, a fastening mechanism, and circuitry amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic drive mechanism, fastening mechanism, and circuitry. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a drive mechanism, a fastening mechanism, and circuitry cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 12, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a fastening mechanism and a drive mechanism amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic fastening mechanism and drive mechanism. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a fastening mechanism and a drive mechanism cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are merely further defining the abstract idea by providing field of use limitations on transmitting and receiving data and are not adding anything to the abstract idea set forth in the independent claims such that the invention will amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3-10 are merely field of use limitations which simply further limit the abstract idea set forth in claim 1. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
For example, dependent claim 3 merely recites the well understood, routine and conventional computing functions of data transmission and gathering. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 3-6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezawa (JP 6954486 B1) in view of Komorowski (PL 70190 Y1) in further view of Liang (CN 114067254 A) in even further view of Atsushi (JP 2012197144 A).
Regarding Claim 1:
Umezawa teaches:
A diagnostic apparatus comprising:, (“A diagnostic unit for diagnosing an abnormality of the second control unit at the time of activation processing when the power of the control device is turned on is provided.” (Umezawa: Description, FIG. 1-4))
a drive mechanism including a rack that includes a connection portion, the drive mechanism being configured to open or close a door panel;, (“The door drive mechanism 200 transmits the power of the motor 30 to the door 80 to open and close the door 80. […] The door drive mechanism 200 includes racks 210 and 220 and lock pins 230.” (Umezawa: Description, FIG. 1-4))
Umezawa does not teach but Komorowski teaches:
a fastening mechanism including a fastening plate provided at the door panel, the fastening mechanism being configured to fasten the door panel to the drive mechanism by fastening the fastening plate to the connection portion; and circuitry configured to:, (“The subject of the application is a lower carriage (100) for a sliding door is provided with a fastening plate (110) with an upper bend (111), […] characterized in that the mounting plate (110) has two side wings the mounting plates (113) provided with snap teeth (112) and the lower bearing bend (115).” (Komorowski: Abstract) Komorowski further mentions “In addition, the fastening plate 110 is provided with locating holes 117. […] thereby pressing against a fastening plate 100 to the surface of the sliding door 300.” (Komorowski: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa with these above aforementioned teachings from Komorowski in order to create an efficient diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Komorowski’s bottom roller of sliding doors in order to include a fastening plate provided at a door panel of a train carriage. Combining Umezawa and Komorowski would thus provide an efficient diagnostic apparatus, system, and method for a train carriage.
Umezawa in view of Komorowski does not teach but Liang teaches:
acquire first data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during at least one of an opening operation or a closing operation of the door, and diagnose an abnormality in the fastening mechanism based on the acquired data,, (“receiving a detection request, and acquiring high-definition video data of train doors; […] when the train door has safety abnormality, the door detection result at least comprises a carriage number and a corresponding abnormal characteristic point.” (Liang: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa in view of Komorowski with these above aforementioned teachings from Liang in order to create a safe diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Liang’s safety state detection method and system for a train door in order to acquire data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during an opening or a closing of the door and diagnose an abnormality in a fastening mechanism based on the acquired data. Combining Umezawa and Liang would thus provide “a safety state detection method and a safety state detection system for train doors, which can automatically identify the safety state of the train doors.” (Liang: Description)
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang does not teach but Atsushi teaches:
wherein the acquired first data includes second data related to at least one of an accelerated state or a decelerated state of the door, and wherein the circuitry is configured to diagnose the abnormality in the fastening mechanism based on the second data., (“In order to achieve the above object, one aspect of the present invention is an elevator door opening / closing control device for controlling opening / closing of an elevator door, wherein the motor driving unit drives a motor for opening / closing the door; […] Thereby, in the abnormality detection of an elevator door, it becomes possible to reduce an operator's burden and to enable highly accurate abnormality detection.” (Atsushi: Description) Atsushi further mentions “In the door opening / closing control in the test mode, the drive device control means 13 controls the torque command means 10 to output a torque command value of an ultra-slow acceleration torque that rotates the door drive motor 2 by very gentle acceleration. […] and notifies the door motor bearing monitoring means 15 of the abnormality of the door opening / closing mechanism.” (Atsushi: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang with these above aforementioned teachings from Atsushi in order to create an effective diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Atsushi’s elevator door control device, method, and program in order to compare acquired first data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during a timing at which the door starts operating with third data different than the first data and related to an operation of the door, wherein the first data includes data related to a speed of the door. Combining Umezawa and Atsushi would thus provide “an elevator door opening / closing control device and elevator door opening / closing control that reduce the burden on the operator and enable high-precision abnormality detection.” (Atsushi: Description)
Regarding Claim 3:
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Umezawa does not teach but Atsushi teaches:
The diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: directly or indirectly compare the acquired first data or processed data that is obtained by processing the first data, with third data, the third data being related to an operation of at least one door,, (“Further, the deterioration determination unit can determine deterioration of the door opening / closing mechanism based on a comparison result between the movement amount of the door as a result of being driven to be opened and closed intermittently and a predetermined threshold. […] As a result, it is possible to automatically and accurately determine the presence of foreign matter in the door sill.” (Atsushi: Description))
[…] and being acquired in a case where the fastening mechanism is in a normal state, and diagnose the abnormality based on a result of comparison., (“In order to achieve the above object, one aspect of the present invention is an elevator door opening / closing control device for controlling opening / closing of an elevator door, wherein the motor driving unit drives a motor for opening / closing the door; […] Thereby, in the abnormality detection of an elevator door, it becomes possible to reduce an operator's burden and to enable highly accurate abnormality detection.” (Atsushi: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa with these above aforementioned teachings from Atsushi in order to create an effective diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Atsushi’s elevator door control device, method, and program in order to compare acquired first data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during a timing at which the door starts operating with third data different than the first data and related to an operation of the door, wherein the first data includes data related to a speed of the door. Combining Umezawa and Atsushi would thus provide “an elevator door opening / closing control device and elevator door opening / closing control that reduce the burden on the operator and enable high-precision abnormality detection.” (Atsushi: Description)
Regarding Claim 4:
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Umezawa further teaches:
[…] and being acquired in the case where the fastening mechanism is in the normal state, […], (“The normal operation means that the door 80 is opened and closed according to the operation status of the railway vehicle 1.” (Umezawa: Description))
Umezawa does not teach but Liang teaches:
The diagnostic apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the third data includes a trained model in which the third data being related to the operation of doors,, (“receiving a detection request, […] the door detection result at least comprises a carriage number and a corresponding abnormal characteristic point.” (Liang: Description))
[…] is learned with supervised learning, and wherein the circuitry is configured to diagnose the abnormality, using the trained model to which the first data is input., (“S104: inputting the image data containing the feature points into a preset deep learning model to obtain the recognition result of each feature point; […] and the driving safety of the freight train is effectively guaranteed.” (Liang: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa with these above aforementioned teachings from Liang in order to create a safe diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Liang’s safety state detection method and system for a train door in order to acquire data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during an opening or a closing of the door and diagnose an abnormality in a fastening mechanism based on the acquired data. Combining Umezawa and Liang would thus provide “a safety state detection method and a safety state detection system for train doors, which can automatically identify the safety state of the train doors.” (Liang: Description)
Regarding Claim 5:
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Umezawa does not teach but Liang teaches:
The diagnostic apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry is configured to: generate image data based on the acquired first data, and diagnose the abnormality using the trained model to which the image data is input., (“receiving a detection request, and acquiring high-definition video data of train doors; […] the door detection result at least comprises a carriage number and a corresponding abnormal characteristic point.” (Liang: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa with these above aforementioned teachings from Liang in order to create a safe diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Liang’s safety state detection method and system for a train door in order to acquire data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during an opening or a closing of the door and diagnose an abnormality in a fastening mechanism based on the acquired data. Combining Umezawa and Liang would thus provide “a safety state detection method and a safety state detection system for train doors, which can automatically identify the safety state of the train doors.” (Liang: Description)
Regarding Claim 6:
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Umezawa does not teach but Atsushi teaches:
The diagnostic apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the third data includes operation-related data of one or more doors, (“Further, the deterioration determination unit can determine deterioration of the door opening / closing mechanism based on a comparison result between the movement amount of the door as a result of being driven to be opened and closed intermittently and a predetermined threshold. […] As a result, it is possible to automatically and accurately determine the presence of foreign matter in the door sill.” (Atsushi: Description))
[…] in a case where the fastening mechanism is under a normal condition, the operation-related data being acquired at at least one of a timing at which the door starts operating or a timing that is immediately after maintenance of the door is performed., (“In order to achieve the above object, one aspect of the present invention is an elevator door opening / closing control device for controlling opening / closing of an elevator door, wherein the motor driving unit drives a motor for opening / closing the door; […] Thereby, in the abnormality detection of an elevator door, it becomes possible to reduce an operator's burden and to enable highly accurate abnormality detection.” (Atsushi: Description) Atsushi further mentions “Here, the driving device control means 13 executes the test using the above-described ultra-slow acceleration torque, […] The door is opened and closed (S204).” (Atsushi: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa with these above aforementioned teachings from Atsushi in order to create an effective diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Atsushi’s elevator door control device, method, and program in order to compare acquired first data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during a timing at which the door starts operating with third data different than the first data and related to an operation of the door, wherein the first data includes data related to a speed of the door. Combining Umezawa and Atsushi would thus provide “an elevator door opening / closing control device and elevator door opening / closing control that reduce the burden on the operator and enable high-precision abnormality detection.” (Atsushi: Description)
Regarding Claim 10:
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Umezawa does not teach but Atsushi teaches:
The diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first data includes data relating to a speed of the door, a current in a motor configured to drive the door, sound of the door, or vibration of the door., (“In order to achieve the above object, one aspect of the present invention is an elevator door opening / closing control device for controlling opening / closing of an elevator door, […] and a door opening and closing speed that detects an opening and closing speed of the door that is driven and opened by the motor.” (Atsushi: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa with these above aforementioned teachings from Atsushi in order to create an effective diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Atsushi’s elevator door control device, method, and program in order to compare acquired first data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during a timing at which the door starts operating with third data different than the first data and related to an operation of the door, wherein the first data includes data related to a speed of the door. Combining Umezawa and Atsushi would thus provide “an elevator door opening / closing control device and elevator door opening / closing control that reduce the burden on the operator and enable high-precision abnormality detection.” (Atsushi: Description)
Regarding Claim 11:
Umezawa teaches:
A diagnostic system comprising:, (“A diagnostic unit for diagnosing an abnormality of the second control unit at the time of activation processing when the power of the control device is turned on is provided.” (Umezawa: Description, FIG. 1-4))
a drive mechanism including a rack that includes a connection portion, the drive mechanism being configured to open or close a door panel;, (“The door drive mechanism 200 transmits the power of the motor 30 to the door 80 to open and close the door 80. […] The door drive mechanism 200 includes racks 210 and 220 and lock pins 230.” (Umezawa: Description, FIG. 1-4))
Umezawa does not teach but Komorowski teaches:
a fastening mechanism including a fastening plate provided at the door panel, the fastening mechanism being configured to fasten the door panel to the drive mechanism by fastening the fastening plate to the connection portion; and circuitry configured to:, (“The subject of the application is a lower carriage (100) for a sliding door is provided with a fastening plate (110) with an upper bend (111), […] characterized in that the mounting plate (110) has two side wings the mounting plates (113) provided with snap teeth (112) and the lower bearing bend (115).” (Komorowski: Abstract) Komorowski further mentions “In addition, the fastening plate 110 is provided with locating holes 117. […] thereby pressing against a fastening plate 100 to the surface of the sliding door 300.” (Komorowski: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa with these above aforementioned teachings from Komorowski in order to create an efficient diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Komorowski’s bottom roller of sliding doors in order to include a fastening plate provided at a door panel of a train carriage. Combining Umezawa and Komorowski would thus provide an efficient diagnostic apparatus, system, and method for a train carriage.
Umezawa in view of Komorowski does not teach but Liang teaches:
perform at least one of an opening operation or a closing operation of a door of a train carriage, acquire first data related to an operation of the door during the at least one of the opening operation or the closing operation, and diagnose an abnormality in the fastening mechanism based on the acquired first data,, (“receiving a detection request, and acquiring high-definition video data of train doors; […] when the train door has safety abnormality, the door detection result at least comprises a carriage number and a corresponding abnormal characteristic point.” (Liang: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa in view of Komorowski with these above aforementioned teachings from Liang in order to create a safe diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Liang’s safety state detection method and system for a train door in order to acquire data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during an opening or a closing of the door and diagnose an abnormality in a fastening mechanism based on the acquired data. Combining Umezawa and Liang would thus provide “a safety state detection method and a safety state detection system for train doors, which can automatically identify the safety state of the train doors.” (Liang: Description)
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang does not teach but Atsushi teaches:
wherein the acquired first data includes second data related to at least one of an accelerated state or a decelerated state of the door, and wherein the circuitry is configured to diagnose the abnormality in the fastening mechanism based on the second data., (“In order to achieve the above object, one aspect of the present invention is an elevator door opening / closing control device for controlling opening / closing of an elevator door, wherein the motor driving unit drives a motor for opening / closing the door; […] Thereby, in the abnormality detection of an elevator door, it becomes possible to reduce an operator's burden and to enable highly accurate abnormality detection.” (Atsushi: Description) Atsushi further mentions “In the door opening / closing control in the test mode, the drive device control means 13 controls the torque command means 10 to output a torque command value of an ultra-slow acceleration torque that rotates the door drive motor 2 by very gentle acceleration. […] and notifies the door motor bearing monitoring means 15 of the abnormality of the door opening / closing mechanism.” (Atsushi: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang with these above aforementioned teachings from Atsushi in order to create an effective diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Atsushi’s elevator door control device, method, and program in order to compare acquired first data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during a timing at which the door starts operating with third data different than the first data and related to an operation of the door, wherein the first data includes data related to a speed of the door. Combining Umezawa and Atsushi would thus provide “an elevator door opening / closing control device and elevator door opening / closing control that reduce the burden on the operator and enable high-precision abnormality detection.” (Atsushi: Description)
Regarding Claim 12:
Umezawa teaches:
A diagnostic method executed by a computer, the diagnostic method comprising:, (“A diagnostic step for diagnosing an abnormality of the second control unit at the time of activation processing associated with power-on of the control device is included.” (Umezawa: Description, FIG. 1-4))
a drive mechanism by fastening the fastening plate to a connection portion in a rack of the drive mechanism that opens or closes the door panel,, (“The door drive mechanism 200 transmits the power of the motor 30 to the door 80 to open and close the door 80. […] The door drive mechanism 200 includes racks 210 and 220 and lock pins 230.” (Umezawa: Description, FIG. 1-4))
Umezawa does not teach but Komorowski teaches:
a fastening mechanism including a fastening plate provided at a door panel and configured to fasten the door panel to, (“The subject of the application is a lower carriage (100) for a sliding door is provided with a fastening plate (110) with an upper bend (111), […] characterized in that the mounting plate (110) has two side wings the mounting plates (113) provided with snap teeth (112) and the lower bearing bend (115).” (Komorowski: Abstract) Komorowski further mentions “In addition, the fastening plate 110 is provided with locating holes 117. […] thereby pressing against a fastening plate 100 to the surface of the sliding door 300.” (Komorowski: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa with these above aforementioned teachings from Komorowski in order to create an efficient diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Komorowski’s bottom roller of sliding doors in order to include a fastening plate provided at a door panel of a train carriage. Combining Umezawa and Komorowski would thus provide an efficient diagnostic apparatus, system, and method for a train carriage.
Umezawa in view of Komorowski does not teach but Liang teaches:
acquiring first data related to an operation of a door during at least one of an opening operation or a closing operation; and diagnosing, based on the acquired first data, an abnormality in, (“receiving a detection request, and acquiring high-definition video data of train doors; […] when the train door has safety abnormality, the door detection result at least comprises a carriage number and a corresponding abnormal characteristic point.” (Liang: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa in view of Komorowski with these above aforementioned teachings from Liang in order to create a safe diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Liang’s safety state detection method and system for a train door in order to acquire data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during an opening or a closing of the door and diagnose an abnormality in a fastening mechanism based on the acquired data. Combining Umezawa and Liang would thus provide “a safety state detection method and a safety state detection system for train doors, which can automatically identify the safety state of the train doors.” (Liang: Description)
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang does not teach but Atsushi teaches:
wherein the acquired first data includes second data related to at least one of an accelerated state or a decelerated state of the door, and wherein the diagnosing of the abnormality in the fastening mechanism is performed based on the second data., (“In order to achieve the above object, one aspect of the present invention is an elevator door opening / closing control device for controlling opening / closing of an elevator door, wherein the motor driving unit drives a motor for opening / closing the door; […] Thereby, in the abnormality detection of an elevator door, it becomes possible to reduce an operator's burden and to enable highly accurate abnormality detection.” (Atsushi: Description) Atsushi further mentions “In the door opening / closing control in the test mode, the drive device control means 13 controls the torque command means 10 to output a torque command value of an ultra-slow acceleration torque that rotates the door drive motor 2 by very gentle acceleration. […] and notifies the door motor bearing monitoring means 15 of the abnormality of the door opening / closing mechanism.” (Atsushi: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang with these above aforementioned teachings from Atsushi in order to create an effective diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Atsushi’s elevator door control device, method, and program in order to compare acquired first data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during a timing at which the door starts operating with third data different than the first data and related to an operation of the door, wherein the first data includes data related to a speed of the door. Combining Umezawa and Atsushi would thus provide “an elevator door opening / closing control device and elevator door opening / closing control that reduce the burden on the operator and enable high-precision abnormality detection.” (Atsushi: Description)
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezawa (JP 6954486 B1) in view of Komorowski (PL 70190 Y1) in further view of Liang (CN 114067254 A) in even further view of Atsushi (JP 2012197144 A) in even further view of Yoshinobu (JP 2012240470 A).
Regarding Claim 7:
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Umezawa does not teach but Liang teaches:
The diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquired first data includes data related to a movement operation of the door in a normal operating mode, of the fastening mechanism,, (“receiving a detection request, and acquiring high-definition video data of train doors; […] the door detection result at least comprises a carriage number and a corresponding abnormal characteristic point.” (Liang: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa with these above aforementioned teachings from Liang in order to create a safe diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Liang’s safety state detection method and system for a train door in order to acquire data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during an opening or a closing of the door and diagnose an abnormality in a fastening mechanism based on the acquired data. Combining Umezawa and Liang would thus provide “a safety state detection method and a safety state detection system for train doors, which can automatically identify the safety state of the train doors.” (Liang: Description)
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi does not teach but Yoshinobu teaches:
[…] in which a passenger is to get on and off the train carriage., (“The railway vehicle 10 transmits and controls information related to the operation state of the driver's cab 11 and various devices mounted on the vehicle 10, […] Reference numeral 21 denotes a communication cable between devices in the vehicle 10, and 22 denotes a communication cable for connecting the hubs 13 of adjacent vehicles.” (Yoshinobu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi with these above aforementioned teachings from Yoshinobu in order to create a user-friendly diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Yoshinobu’s monitoring system for a railroad vehicle in order to diagnose an abnormality of an operation of a door of a train carriage during an opening or a closing of the door based on processed data indicating a result of frequency analysis that is performed on acquired first data of the operation of the door. Combining Umezawa and Yoshinobu would thus provide “a railway vehicle monitoring system with improved safety, reliability and convenience.” (Yoshinobu: Description)
Regarding Claim 8:
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Umezawa further teaches:
[…] the diagnostic operating mode being different from a normal operating mode […], (“The self-diagnosis process is a process in which the main system control unit 110 and the standby system control unit 120 make a diagnosis regarding their own abnormality, […] It may be a mode in which a diagnosis regarding a functional abnormality such as 122 is separately performed.” (Umezawa: Description) Umezawa further mentions “The normal operation means that the door 80 is opened and closed according to the operation status of the railway vehicle 1.” (Umezawa: Description))
Umezawa does not teach but Liang teaches:
The diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the acquired first data includes data related to a movement operation of the door in a diagnostic operating mode,, (“receiving a detection request, and acquiring high-definition video data of train doors; […] the door detection result at least comprises a carriage number and a corresponding abnormal characteristic point.” (Liang: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa with these above aforementioned teachings from Liang in order to create a safe diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Liang’s safety state detection method and system for a train door in order to acquire data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during an opening or a closing of the door and diagnose an abnormality in a fastening mechanism based on the acquired data. Combining Umezawa and Liang would thus provide “a safety state detection method and a safety state detection system for train doors, which can automatically identify the safety state of the train doors.” (Liang: Description)
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi does not teach but Yoshinobu teaches:
[…] in which a passenger is to get on and off the train carriage., (“The railway vehicle 10 transmits and controls information related to the operation state of the driver's cab 11 and various devices mounted on the vehicle 10, […] Reference numeral 21 denotes a communication cable between devices in the vehicle 10, and 22 denotes a communication cable for connecting the hubs 13 of adjacent vehicles.” (Yoshinobu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi with these above aforementioned teachings from Yoshinobu in order to create a user-friendly diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Yoshinobu’s monitoring system for a railroad vehicle in order to diagnose an abnormality of an operation of a door of a train carriage during an opening or a closing of the door based on processed data indicating a result of frequency analysis that is performed on acquired first data of the operation of the door. Combining Umezawa and Yoshinobu would thus provide “a railway vehicle monitoring system with improved safety, reliability and convenience.” (Yoshinobu: Description)
Regarding Claim 9:
Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi does not teach but Yoshinobu teaches:
The diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to diagnose the abnormality based on processed data indicating a result of frequency analysis that is performed on the first data., (“In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, an invention according to claim 1 is directed to an auxiliary power supply for supplying control power to various devices in a vehicle excluding at least a main motor for driving a vehicle, and opening / closing control of an electric door for getting on and off. […] When it occurs more than the set number of times, it has a function of determining that an abnormality has occurred in the auxiliary power supply device and generating an alarm.” (Yoshinobu: Description))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umezawa in view of Komorowski in further view of Liang in even further view of Atsushi with these above aforementioned teachings from Yoshinobu in order to create a user-friendly diagnostic apparatus, system, and method. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umezawa’s control device and method with Yoshinobu’s monitoring system for a railroad vehicle in order to diagnose an abnormality of an operation of a door of a train carriage during an opening or a closing of the door based on processed data indicating a result of frequency analysis that is performed on acquired first data of the operation of the door. Combining Umezawa and Yoshinobu would thus provide “a railway vehicle monitoring system with improved safety, reliability and convenience.” (Yoshinobu: Description)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 13th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 13th, 2026 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, claims 1 and 11-12 recite acquiring, diagnosing, and performing steps that as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Moreover, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Considering claims 1 and 11, the claims recite three additional elements – a drive mechanism, a fastening mechanism, and circuitry. All three elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic drive mechanism, fastening mechanism, and circuitry. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. On the other hand, claims 1 and 11 recite the additional elements of a drive mechanism including a rack that includes a connection portion, the drive mechanism being configured to open or close a door panel and a fastening mechanism including a fastening plate provided at the door panel, the fastening mechanism being configured to fasten the door panel to the drive mechanism by fastening the fastening plate to the connection portion. The opening, closing, and fastening steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as general means of transmitting and receiving data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity. Considering claim 12, the claim recites two additional elements – a fastening mechanism and a drive mechanism. Both elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic fastening mechanism and drive mechanism. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (See 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above for further detail)
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the limitations are taught in the combination of Umezawa, Komorowski, Liang, and Atsushi as has been set forth above, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Therefore, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
More specifically, Umezawa mentions “The door drive mechanism 200 transmits the power of the motor 30 to the door 80 to open and close the door 80. […] The door drive mechanism 200 includes racks 210 and 220 and lock pins 230.” (Umezawa: Description, FIG. 1-4) In doing so, Umezawa addresses the Applicant’s limitations of “a drive mechanism including a rack that includes a connection portion, the drive mechanism being configured to open or close a door panel” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 11-12.
Moreover, Komorowski mentions “The subject of the application is a lower carriage (100) for a sliding door is provided with a fastening plate (110) with an upper bend (111), […] characterized in that the mounting plate (110) has two side wings the mounting plates (113) provided with snap teeth (112) and the lower bearing bend (115).” (Komorowski: Abstract) Komorowski further mentions “In addition, the fastening plate 110 is provided with locating holes 117. […] thereby pressing against a fastening plate 100 to the surface of the sliding door 300.” (Komorowski: Description) In doing so, Komorowski addresses the Applicant’s limitations of “a fastening mechanism including a fastening plate provided at the door panel, the fastening mechanism being configured to fasten the door panel to the drive mechanism by fastening the fastening plate to the connection portion; and circuitry configured to” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 11-12.
Moreover, Liang mentions “receiving a detection request, and acquiring high-definition video data of train doors; […] when the train door has safety abnormality, the door detection result at least comprises a carriage number and a corresponding abnormal characteristic point.” (Liang: Description) In doing so, Liang addresses the Applicant’s limitations of “acquire first data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during at least one of an opening operation or a closing operation of the door, and diagnose an abnormality in the fastening mechanism based on the acquired data” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 11-12.
Finally, Atsushi mentions “In order to achieve the above object, one aspect of the present invention is an elevator door opening / closing control device for controlling opening / closing of an elevator door, wherein the motor driving unit drives a motor for opening / closing the door; […] Thereby, in the abnormality detection of an elevator door, it becomes possible to reduce an operator's burden and to enable highly accurate abnormality detection.” (Atsushi: Description) Atsushi further mentions “In the door opening / closing control in the test mode, the drive device control means 13 controls the torque command means 10 to output a torque command value of an ultra-slow acceleration torque that rotates the door drive motor 2 by very gentle acceleration. […] and notifies the door motor bearing monitoring means 15 of the abnormality of the door opening / closing mechanism.” (Atsushi: Description) In doing so, Atsushi addresses the Applicant’s limitations of “wherein the acquired first data includes second data related to at least one of an accelerated state or a decelerated state of the door, and wherein the circuitry is configured to diagnose the abnormality in the fastening mechanism based on the second data” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 11-12.
As a result, the combination of Umezawa, Komorowski, Liang, and Atsushi addresses “a drive mechanism including a rack that includes a connection portion, the drive mechanism being configured to open or close a door panel; a fastening mechanism including a fastening plate provided at the door panel, the fastening mechanism being configured to fasten the door panel to the drive mechanism by fastening the fastening plate to the connection portion; and circuitry configured to: acquire first data related to an operation of a door of a train carriage during at least one of an opening operation or a closing operation of the door, and diagnose an abnormality in the fastening mechanism based on the acquired data, wherein the acquired first data includes second data related to at least one of an accelerated state or a decelerated state of the door, and wherein the circuitry is configured to diagnose the abnormality in the fastening mechanism based on the second data” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claims 11-12.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights