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 .
The following is a final office action in response to the RCE filed 12/24/2025. Amendments received on 12/24/2025 have been entered. As per applicant claims 4, 6-7, 14, 16, 18 and 27 have been canceled and claim 28 is newly added claim. Accordingly claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15, 17, 19, 21-26, 28 are pending.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11-12, 15, 17, 19, 21-22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tehranchi et al. (US Pub 2015/0228134) in view of Soderqvist (WO 2018/104258; refer to the US Pub 2019/0292835 for the citation of Soderqvist throughout the office action) in view of Hiltunen et al. (US Pub 2018/0072535) and further in view of Lobean et al. (US Pub 2012/0321136).
As of claims 1 and 19, Tehranchi discloses a door system comprising:
a drive system for operating a door, wherein the door is a swinging door (via barrier 101 being a swing gate; see paragraph [0035]) and the drive system comprises:
a motor (via motor 108; see fig. 1); and
and a controller for controlling the drive system (via barrier operator 102; see fig. 1), the controller comprising:
a communication interface (via network interface 106/access point 105; see fig. 1);
a memory having computer readable code stored thereon (via a memory and one or more programs stored in the memory; see paragraph [0009]); and
a processor operatively coupled to the memory and the communication interface (via controller 107; see fig. 1), wherein when executed the computer readable code is configured to cause the processor to:
identify a presence of a user that is moving towards the door or past the door, through one or more door input devices (via detecting user’s mobile device through network interface 106/access point 105 when the mobile device is within a proximity/range of the operator; see paraqgrpah [0032], [0039] and [0042]);
identify at least one operating parameter for the user (identifying user’s profile containing user permissions associated with a level of access; see paragraphs [0048] and [0061]; and
control the drive system based on the at least one operating parameter (via generating a barrier command in order to actuate or initiate control of the barrier and provide access; see paragraphs [0075]- [0076]).
Tehranchi discloses that the barrier is a swing gate (see paragraph [0035]) however Tehranchi does not explicitly disclose that the drive system comprises a linkage assembly operatively coupled to the motor, wherein the linkage assembly is configured to be operatively coupled to the door, a wall, or a door frame.
Soderqvist discloses an automatic door operator for a swing door assembly includes an automatic door operator 30 and a linkage mechanism 20 connecting the automatic door operator 30 to the door leaf 14 (see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0029]).
From the teaching of Soderqvist it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Tehranchi to include a motor and a linkage assembly for a swinging door as taught by Soderqvist since it is known in the art to use a linkage mechanism to connect the door operator to the door leaf (see paragraph [0012]).
Combination of Tehranchi and Soderqvist does not explicitly discloses identify a type of user that is moving towards the door and optimize operating parameters based on the type of user moving towards the door and that the at least one operating parameter comprises a speed of opening or closing the door, a force for opening or closing the door, or open time for the door.
Hiltunen discloses an access control system, wherien control 52 identifies a type of a user that is moving towards door (via smartphone 40 of the user transmitting ID of the user and the ID of the user used to determine type of a user (handicapped)) and optimizes operating parameters of the door (door opening time/door closing velocity) based on type of the user (see paragraphs [007]-[009] and [0025]). In the system of Hiltunen the control 52 communicates with a smartphone 40 using short range wireless communication and the parameters are communicated to the interface when coming into short range transmission (Bluetooth, RFID; see paragraphs [005], [0024] and [0048]), so when the user is moving towards the door and comes within a short range of the control 52 it connects with the smartphone 40 that is interpreted as identifying a presence of user that is moving towards the door.
From the teaching of Hiltunen, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination Tehranchi and Soderqvist to include different operating parameter for different users as taught by Hiltunen in order to adjust door closer according to the convenience of the user.
So Hiltunen differs from the claimed invention that the physical information/type of user is determined by communicating with the mobile device of the user, whereas the newly amended limitations use one or more detection sensors.
Lobean discloses a door system wherein a host computer 210 including a processor and a memory is configured to (see paragraph [0016]): capture a physical appearance of a user while the user is moving towards the door 120 via a camera 130 (see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0015]), identify physical information of the user from the physical appearance of the user and identify a type of user (via performing gait detection and determining if the user is on wheelchair) and control the opening speed of the door based on presence or absence of a gait and speed of the user (see paragraphs [0007]-[0008] and [0020]).
From the teaching of Lobean, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Tehranchi Soderqvist and Hiltunen to optimize operation of the door based on identifying one or more objects via image recognition as taught by Lobean in order to dynamically adjust door operation time.
As of claims 2 and 21, Lobean discloses that the one or more detection sensors capture one or more images of the user to identify physical information of the user (via capturing image of the users 110A 110B; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0007]).
As of claim 3, Lobean discloses that the one or more image comprises a video, still photo or a live photo (see paragraph [0015], “An image acquisition device 130, for example a video camera, can capture different images at different times of the moving object 110A, 110B and door management logic 140 responsive to gait detection can detect the presence or absence of a gait in the movement of the moving object 110A, 110B as the moving object 110A, 110B approaches the door 120”).
As of claim 5, Hiltunen discloses that the at least one operating parameter comprises:
identifying the at least one operating parameter stored in the memory of the controller based on the type of user (via identifying the operating parameter storing in user module 56 in the control 56; see paragraph [0007]).
As of claims 8 and 22, Lobean discloses that the physical information is movement of the user as the user is moving towards the door (see paragraph [0015], “As shown in FIG. 1, a moving object 110A, 110B can be detected as the moving object 110A, 110B approaches an automated door 120. An image acquisition device 130, for example a video camera, can capture different images at different times of the moving object 110A, 110B and door management logic 140 responsive to gait detection can detect the presence or absence of a gait in the movement of the moving object 110A, 110B as the moving object 110A, 110B approaches the door 120”).
As of claims 11 and 25, Hiltunen discloses that wherein the type of user is determined based on identifying a child user, an adult user, an elderly user, a user without an object, a user with an object, or a physical user appearance (via identifying that the user is handicapped; see paragraph [0007]).
Lobean further discloses that the type of the user is determined based on identifying a user with an object based on the physical information (via determining that the user person is in a wheelchair or scooter; see paragraph [0014]).
As of claims 12 and 26, Lobean discloses that the physical information is a height or a size of the user, facial recognition of the user, or a physical feature of the user (see paragraph [0017], “… the vertical positioning of a silhouette of a person in the image data can be analyzed to determine an estimated height of the person and changes in the vertical positioning of the silhouette can be compared from frame to frame relative to a background image to compute a gait for the person. Once the height of a person can be estimated, the changes in vertical positioning can be referenced for the height of the person in a table 250 to identify an estimated gait, with larger changes in vertical positioning reflecting a faster gait and smaller changes in the vertical positioning reflecting a slower gait (and no changes in vertical positioning reflecting no gait and implicating a disabled person on a wheeled vehicle”).
As of claim 15, Lobean discloses that the processor is further configured to execute the computer readable code to:
identify one or more objects in a door area of the door system using the one or more detection sensors during operation of the door system (via identifying one or more object 110A or 110B; see paragraph [0015]); and
Page 47 of 50changing the at least one operating parameter during operation of the door system based on the identification of the one or more objects in the door area (via changing door opening speed based on the one or more objects 110A or 110B; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0015]).
As of claim 17, Lobean discloses that the one or more detection sensors comprise a camera, a motion sensor, a movement sensor, an infrared sensor, a radar sensor, a vision sensor, a 3D sensor, a laser sensor, or a light curtain (via image acquisition device 130; see fig. 1; also see paragraph [0015]).
Claims 10, 13, 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tehranchi, Soderqvist, Hiltunen, Lobean and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (US Pub 2002/0191819).
As of claims 10, 24 and 28, combination of Tehranchi, Soderqvist, Hiltunen and Lobean discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose capture an object via the one or more detection sensors; and wherein identifying the at least one operating parameter is based on the user having the object or the object being located adjacent the user.
Hashimoto discloses capture an object via the one or more detection sensors (via detecting wheelchair); and wherein identifying the at least one operating parameter is based on the user having the object or the object being located adjacent the user (via identifying opening/closing time of the door based on the wheelchair detection; see paragraph [0101]-[0103]).
From the teaching of Hashimoto, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary kill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Tehranchi, Soderqvist, Hiltunen and Lobean to include the function of detecting wheelchair in a manner taught by Hashimoto in order to confirm that a user with a wheelchair is requesting access through the door.
As of claim 13, Hashimoto discloses identify a presence of the user based on the one or more detection sensors before capturing the physical appearance of the user (via detecting distance from the camera to the user first and then capture the image; see paragraphs [0090]- [0091]).
Claims 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tehranchi, Soderqvist, Hiltunen, Lobean and further in view of Aksamit et al. (US 10,249,122).
As of claims 9 and 23, combination of Tehranchi, Soderqvist, Hiltunen and Lobean discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose that the at least one operating parameter for the user is based on a pattern of movement of the user or a plurality of users over time.
Aksamit discloses that the use of recording a pattern of movement of the user over time and utilize such data to perform access control (see col. 2, lines 23-30). So based on this teaching, the access control system could learn pattern of movement of plurality of users over time (for example multiple handicapped users as taught in Hiltunen) to control the door based on the movement pattern of the users.
From the teaching of Aksamit it would have been obvious to one having ordinary kill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Tehranchi, Soderqvist, Hiltunen and Lobean to include the function of using movement pattern as taught by Aksamit in order to allow for more efficient control of the access control device by taking advantage of how the user moves when approaching the access control device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached on 571-272-3059. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686