DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 and 4-22 are pending. Claims 19-22 are new.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to European Patent Application No. 21159073.2 filed on 2/24/2021.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they are not numbered consecutively — there is no claim 3. See MPEP 608.01(i). Appropriate correction is required.
In addition, the claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
‘wherein the control device has the higher computing power than the drive controller’ should read ‘wherein the control device has a higher computing power than the drive controller’ (claim 5).
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(s) 2, 4-5, 6-9, 11-17 and 19-22 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 5, this claim recites ‘the control device has the higher computing power than the drive controller’ and it is not clear what the metes and bounds are of ‘higher’ in this context.
With regard to claim 7, this claim recites ‘the first bus system’ for which there is no antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 8, this claim recites ‘the drive controller to actuate the motor accordingly’ and it is not clear what ‘accordingly’ refers to.
In addition, claim 8 recites ‘at least one parameter’, i.e. one or more parameters, and then ‘the parameters’ indicating more than one parameter that is unclear.
In addition, claim 8 recites ‘in particular as a function of a door handle being actuated to open the door’ and it is not clear if this phrase is limiting or not.
In addition, claim recites ‘can be received’ and it is not clear if the parameter is received or not.
With regard to claim 9, this claim recites ‘can be received’ and it is not clear if the parameter is received or not.
With regard to claim 11, this claim recites ‘in the event of danger’ and it is not clear what the metes and bounds are of ‘danger’.
With regard to claim 13, this claim recites ‘the same first bus system’ and ‘the drive controllers’ for which there is no antecedent basis.
In addition, claim 13 recites ‘the process is stored in firmware’ and it is not clear if this is the same firmware recited in claim 1.
With regard to claim 14, this claim recites ‘the first bus system’ for which there is no antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 16, this claim recites ‘the first bus system’ for which there is no antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 17, this claim recites ‘the first bus system’ for which there is no antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 20, this claim recites ‘can be loaded’ and it is not clear if the configuration is loaded or not.
With regard to claim 21, this claim recites ‘in terms of information technology’ and it is unclear what the intended meaning of this phrase is in this particular context.
In addition to the above, claims 2, 4, 6-7, 12 and 15 use the word ‘designed’ and it is not clear if this is merely an intended result.
The dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as they inherit all of the characteristics of the claim from which they depend and none of the dependent claims provide a cure for the indefiniteness of the parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrus et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170002604 (hereinafter Andrus).
Regarding claim 1, Andrus discloses a door system for one or a plurality of doors [0051, Figs. 1-7 — Embodiments of the present invention include a rotating door system 100 for opening and closing a doorway, such as a storefront. Rotating door system 100 may include one or more rotatable doors 110 each defined by two opposing horizontal edges 118, two opposing vertical edges 120, a front surface 122, and a back surface 124. As shown in FIG. 1, each rotatable door 110 has a height 112 measured in a vertical direction 102 between opposing horizontal edges 118 and a width 11; 0076 — In some embodiments, one or more rotatable doors may be rotated under control of a controller, automatically and/or in response to a signal (e.g., a user input). FIG. 7 shows a control system 700 for controlling the rotation of one or more rotatable doors 710 according to an embodiment. As shown in FIG. 7, control system 700 may include a controller 720 in communication with a plurality of rotatable doors 710. Rotatable doors 710 may be, e.g., any rotatable door discussed herein (e.g., doors 110 and 410). Controller 720 may be configured to rotate each rotatable door 710, together or individually, in any manner discussed herein with respect to rotatable doors 110 or 410. In some embodiments, controller 720 may be configured to rotate each rotatable door 710 simultaneously or sequentially. In some embodiments, controller 720 may be in communication with actuators 750 associated with individual rotatable doors 710. In some embodiments, each actuator 750 may include a motor (e.g., electric motor)], the door system comprising:
at least one motorized door drive, wherein the door drive comprises a motor and a drive controller for actuating the motor of the door drive [0076-0080, Fig. 7 — a processor 722 of controller 720 may receive a signal (e.g., from user input 740 or server 760) to open a doorway (e.g., storefront 210), and, in response to receiving the signal, controller 720 may control at least one motor to simultaneously rotate a plurality of rotatable doors defining at least a portion of the doorway about their respective axes of rotation],
wherein the door system comprises a control device which is connected to the drive controller [0076-0080, Fig. 7 — a processor 722 of controller 720 may receive a signal (e.g., from user input 740 or server 760 — control devices) to open a doorway (e.g., storefront 210), and, in response to receiving the signal, controller 720 may control at least one motor to simultaneously rotate a plurality of rotatable doors defining at least a portion of the doorway about their respective axes of rotation],
wherein the door system comprises at least one locking element [0099 — one or more a locking mechanisms 1330 may be disposed in a portion of cavity 1316. Locking mechanism(s) 1330 may extend from and retract into cavity 1316 so as to lock and unlock a rotatable door in a closed and/or open position. In some embodiments, locking mechanism(s) 1330 may include a magnetic locking mechanism to lock and unlock a rotatable door in a closed and/or open position. In some embodiments, locking mechanism(s) 1330 may be manually controlled (e.g., with a key). In some embodiments, locking mechanism(s) 1330 may be controlled by a controller (e.g., controller 720).],
wherein a process is predefined by firmware, wherein the process comprises an operating step to be carried out by the motor and an operating step to be carried out by the locking element [0100-0101, Fig. 15 —One or more aspects of the rotatable door systems and methods discussed herein or function(s) thereof may be implemented using hardware, software modules, firmware… portions of controller 720 or server 760 may be implemented in computer system 1500 using hardware, software, firmware].
Regarding claim 4, Andrus discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Andrus discloses the drive controller is designed to accelerate and/or brake the motor such that a door is opened, stopped and/or closed [0047, 0077 — rotation of one or more rotatable doors may be controlled by a controller. The controller may coordinate (e.g., synchronize) the rotational movements of one or more rotatable doors. In some embodiments, the controller may receive a signal from one or more devices (e.g., user inputs or sensors) to control the rotational movements of one or more rotatable doors. These signals may be used to open the rotatable doors, close the rotatable doors, stop rotation the rotatable doors, prevent the rotation of the rotatable doors, etc.].
Regarding claim 6, Andrus discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Andrus discloses the control device is designed to evaluate, based on received signals, whether the door is to be opened, stopped or closed by the motor, wherein the control device causes the drive controller to actuate the motor based on the evaluation [0047, 0077 — rotation of one or more rotatable doors may be controlled by a controller. The controller may coordinate (e.g., synchronize) the rotational movements of one or more rotatable doors. In some embodiments, the controller may receive a signal from one or more devices (e.g., user inputs or sensors) to control the rotational movements of one or more rotatable doors. These signals may be used to open the rotatable doors, close the rotatable doors, stop rotation the rotatable doors, prevent the rotation of the rotatable doors, etc.].
Regarding claim 7, Andrus discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Andrus discloses the door system comprises at least one sensor, wherein a signal of the sensor is used to cause the door to open, stop and/or close by the door drive, wherein the sensor is connected to the first bus system and/or wherein the door system is designed to evaluate the signals of the sensor by way of the control device, wherein the control device causes the drive controller to actuate the motor based on the evaluation [0047 — rotation of one or more rotatable doors may be controlled by a controller. The controller may coordinate (e.g., synchronize) the rotational movements of one or more rotatable doors. In some embodiments, the controller may receive a signal from one or more devices (e.g., user inputs or sensors) to control the rotational movements of one or more rotatable doors. These signals may be used to open the rotatable doors, close the rotatable doors, stop rotation the rotatable doors, prevent the rotation of the rotatable doors, etc.; 0077 — control system 700 may include one or more sensors 730 in communication with controller 720. In some embodiments, controller 720 may be configured to control the rotation of one or more rotatable doors 710 based on signals received from one or more sensors 730. In some embodiments, controller 720 may be configured to prevent or stop rotation of one or more rotatable doors 710 in response to receiving a signal from one or more sensors 730. For example, if a sensor 730 detects the presence of an object between two rotatable doors in the open position, sensor 730 may send a signal to controller 720 indicating the presence of the object and, in turn, controller 720 may prevent or stop rotation of the two rotatable doors 710. Sensors 730 may include, but are not limited to, a motion sensor, an IR (infrared) sensor, a heat sensor, a touch sensor, a camera, a microphone, or a combination thereof.].
Regarding claim 14, Andrus discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Andrus discloses the locking element is connected to the first bus system [0099, Fig. 7 — one or more a locking mechanisms 1330 may be disposed in a portion of cavity 1316. Locking mechanism(s) 1330 may extend from and retract into cavity 1316 so as to lock and unlock a rotatable door in a closed and/or open position. In some embodiments, locking mechanism(s) 1330 may include a magnetic locking mechanism to lock and unlock a rotatable door in a closed and/or open position. In some embodiments, locking mechanism(s) 1330 may be manually controlled (e.g., with a key). In some embodiments, locking mechanism(s) 1330 may be controlled by a controller (e.g., controller 720 — to which it must be connected)].
Regarding claim 16, Andrus discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Andrus discloses the door system comprises a motor lock, wherein the drive controller actuates the motor lock, wherein the motor lock is connected to the first bus system [0099, Fig. 7 — one or more a locking mechanisms 1330 may be disposed in a portion of cavity 1316. Locking mechanism(s) 1330 may extend from and retract into cavity 1316 so as to lock and unlock a rotatable door in a closed and/or open position. In some embodiments, locking mechanism(s) 1330 may include a magnetic locking mechanism to lock and unlock a rotatable door in a closed and/or open position. In some embodiments, locking mechanism(s) 1330 may be manually controlled (e.g., with a key). In some embodiments, locking mechanism(s) 1330 may be controlled by a controller (e.g., controller 720 — to which it must be connected)].
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8-9, 19-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weik et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190281120 (hereinafter Weik) in view of Johnson et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210034882 (hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 1, Weik teaches door system for one or a plurality of doors [0018-0019 — The preferred data connected components of this door control system invention include the following: Mitsubishi VFD (Variable Frequency Drive) or equivalent with its configuration files with or without a data link but with the necessary VFD control functions as I/O on the Control Board, wherein the Control Board is preferably a device known commercially as an SDS-0300 Controller offered commercially through Smartdoor Systems, Inc.;, 0028-0030, Fig. 1 — a schematic view of the system 100 according to the present invention. FIG. 1 shows the power, data or signal pathways between components that switch control signals on and off, and that carry data within the system components that process data signals. The connections between the components that pass data in both directions have arrows at each end…. doors have many control devices used to open; stop, close and safety reverse the door], the door system comprising:
at least one motorized door drive, wherein the door drive comprises a motor and a drive controller for actuating the motor of the door drive [0037, Fig. 1 — a controller 2, which is an FPGA based Control Board… a motor assembly 6],
wherein the door system comprises a control device which is connected to the drive controller [0037, Fig. 1 — a single board computer 5, hereafter referred to as an SBC 5 — connects to controller 2],
wherein a process is predefined by firmware, wherein the process comprises an operating step to be carried out by the motor [0043 — microcontroller firmware contains a command interpreter; 0054 — the encoder position number is read by the encoder and sent as a specific integer to the controller. During a setup operation the specific number is determined and assigned to the open and closed position by the installer via the Touch Screen Display interface of the SBC. From this number, slow down points can be determined as specific counts subtracted from the stop position through a learning method contained in the Control Board firmware of the controller 2].
But Weik fails to clearly specify that the door system comprises at least one locking element, and an operating step to be carried out by the locking element.
However, Johnson teaches the door system comprises at least one locking element, and a process is predefined by firmware, wherein the process comprises an operating step to be carried out by the locking element [0198 — the firmware elements, of the intelligent door lock system 10, as well as other door lock device 22 elements, can also attempt to drive the bolt/lock 24 for a second time when the first time fails; 0214-0216, Fig. 20 — the intelligent door look system 100 can lock or unlock the door 120].
Weik and Johnson are analogous art. They relate to door control systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by Weik, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Johnson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to secure a door while enabling flexible programmatic control by the owner, as taught by Johnson [0086].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Weik and Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Weik teaches the drive controller and the control device are connected to one another with a first bus system [0037, Fig. 1 — a single board computer 5, hereafter referred to as an SBC 5 — connects to controller 2; 0058 — Most commands and status information is transferred from the Door Controller to the SBC using a USB connection. Commands for opening, closing and stopping the door have a slight delay because of the software levels required to send a command to the Door Controller via the USB port (Universal Serial Bus)],
wherein the control device is configured to be connected to a second bus system, wherein the control device is designed to receive an electronic configuration for controlling the door system via the second bus system [0037, Fig. 1 — a WAN/Internet 13; 0047, Fig. 1 — Single Board Computer (SBC) 5 is a preferred device to operate as a hub that manages the data flow between the local human interface (display screen 8) as well as any remote human interface via an APP on the smartphone 11; the data collection from the FPGA 2 forwarded by the microcontroller and generated by the logic in the FPGA 2; manage the display screen 11; handle the connectivity to the internet connection 13 to the server 10; 0043 — The microcontroller firmware contains a command interpreter that can be accessed via a USB port, by the SBC to update configuration information; 0071 — server 10 can hold archived program files for the system that programs the FPGA 2, the SBC 5, and the VFD 4 that can be downloaded to each component at point of manufacture specific to door type, voltage, etc. as called for in the production specification and application. The server 10 would also support the data collection from each network connected device, manage upgrades and “remember” the setup and program files for each controller by serial number, MAC address or other designation that identifies a specific controller.].
Further, Johnson teaches the control device is designed to receive an electronic configuration for controlling the door system via the second bus system [0533 — firmware updates are provide to intelligent door lock system from server. In one embodiment a dwelling Bluetooth device 21 sends a packet with or without acknowledgement. As a non-limiting example server 510 sends updates to mobile device 210 or Bluetooth to WiFi bridge 11. Mobile device 210 or WIFI bridge 11 then sends the updates to a Bluetooth device 21 at the dwelling, e.g., to lock system 10].
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Weik and Johnson, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Johnson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so that the firmware is up to date, as suggested by Johnson [0533].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Weik and Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Weik teaches wherein the control device comprises at least one processor [0019 — a SBC (Single Board Computer) with a data link to the Control Board; the data link being any common data transfer technology not limited to blue tooth, USB, or serial formats, the SBC such as BlueChip Technologies' Beta 712H and its program with removable memory device typically a SD card with data link to the Internet, Smartphone or larger touch display type screen; 0047 — The Single Board Computer (SBC) 5 (SBC’s comprise processors) is a preferred device to operate as a hub that manages the data flow between the local human interface (display screen 8) as well as any remote human interface via an APP on the smartphone 11… basic programs and capabilities of the SBC 5 include driving the display with both video and text, touch screen support, manage wired or wireless internet connection, connections, manage NFC and Bluetooth connections, file management, support multi format pages for set up and configuration, and organization and implementation of application files] and the drive controller comprises at least one processor [0038, Fig. 1 — Control Board of the controller 2 is preferably a printed circuit board designed around a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) and a microcontroller with a processor. The FPGA is designed (using a hardware description language) to contain hardware logic circuits that create logical paths from inputs to outputs. After the FPGA is configured the internal logic is the same as having hardware logic gates on the board],
wherein the control device has the higher computing power than the drive controller [0047 — The Single Board Computer (SBC) 5 (SBC’s comprise processors and are more capable/powerful than microcontrollers, i.e. higher computing power) is a preferred device to operate as a hub that manages the data flow between the local human interface (display screen 8) as well as any remote human interface via an APP on the smartphone 11… basic programs and capabilities of the SBC 5 include driving the display with both video and text, touch screen support, manage wired or wireless internet connection, connections, manage NFC and Bluetooth connections, file management, support multi format pages for set up and configuration, and organization and implementation of application files; 0038, Fig. 1 — Control Board of the controller 2 is preferably a printed circuit board designed around a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) and a microcontroller with a processor.],
wherein the control device comprises a hardware accelerator [0038, Fig. 1 — Control Board of the controller 2 is preferably a printed circuit board designed around a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) (known type of hardware accelerator) and a microcontroller with a processor. The FPGA is designed (using a hardware description language) to contain hardware logic circuits that create logical paths from inputs to outputs. After the FPGA is configured the internal logic is the same as having hardware logic gates on the board].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Weik and Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Weik teaches at least one parameter for actuating the motor is stored in the control device and/or can be received by the control device, wherein the control device causes the drive controller to actuate the motor accordingly, wherein the parameters are used for setting at least one of the following features of the door system: an opening speed of the door, a closing speed of the door, a hold-open time of the door, a motor power of the motor, an opening width or an opening angle of the door, and an actuation of the motor as a function of a user action, in particular as a function of a door handle being actuated to open the door [0041 — FPGA logic responds to the operator type; single speed or variable; where position sensing determines if the door should run at a constant or fast, medium or slow speed, or stop. Typically, when opening, a faster speed is chosen and a medium speed when closing. When the door position is near to the full open or near full close position as determined a position sensor (encoder or limit switch), the FPGA logic will set a slow speed and stops the door when it reaches the final open or close set point position by switching on the brake activation circuit relay on the Control Board of the controller 2 and configuring the VFD control relays on the Control Board to the OFF configuration. The single speed type responds to a go or stop command in either direction.].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Weik and Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Weik teaches at least one parameter for actuating the motor is stored in the control device and/or can be received by the door system, by the control device [0041 — FPGA logic responds to the operator type; single speed or variable; where position sensing determines if the door should run at a constant or fast, medium or slow speed, or stop. Typically, when opening, a faster speed is chosen and a medium speed when closing. When the door position is near to the full open or near full close position as determined a position sensor (encoder or limit switch), the FPGA logic will set a slow speed and stops the door when it reaches the final open or close set point position by switching on the brake activation circuit relay on the Control Board of the controller 2 and configuring the VFD control relays on the Control Board to the OFF configuration. The single speed type responds to a go or stop command in either direction.].
Further, Johnson teaches at least one parameter for actuating the motor is stored individually for authorized users or for authorized user groups or individually for access attributes or for access attribute groups in the door system, in the control device and/or can be received by the door system, by the control device [0226 — FIGS. 21(e) and (f) are dwelling user, resource owner, or end-user, resource owner, or end-user interface examples that allow the owner to add other dwelling user, resource owner, or end-user, resource owner, or end-users/people to be able to control the intelligent door look system 100 of the building. FIG. 21(g) is an example of a configuration interface that allows the owner of the building to customize a set of permissions assigned for each intelligent door lock system 100; 0213 — , when commanded to do so, the motor assembly in the intelligent door lock system 100 can also turn the extension gear 126 that in turn turns the extension rod and lock or unlock the bolt assembly].
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Weik and Johnson, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Johnson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to only provide access rights to authorized users, for example for security, as suggested by Johnson [0226].
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Weik and Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Johnson teaches the electronic configuration comprises the firmware or instructions for the firmware [0533 — firmware updates are provide to intelligent door lock system from server. In one embodiment a dwelling Bluetooth device 21 sends a packet with or without acknowledgement. As a non-limiting example server 510 sends updates to mobile device 210 or Bluetooth to WiFi bridge 11. Mobile device 210 or WIFI bridge 11 then sends the updates to a Bluetooth device 21 at the dwelling, e.g., to lock system 10].
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Weik and Johnson, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Johnson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so that the firmware is up to date, as suggested by Johnson [0533].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Weik and Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Weik teaches electronic configuration is predefined for a door system type and can be loaded from a first or second database during a commissioning process [0071 — The server 10 can hold archived program files for the system that programs the FPGA 2, the SBC 5, and the VFD 4 that can be downloaded to each component at point of manufacture specific to door type, voltage, etc. as called for in the production specification and application. The server 10 would also support the data collection from each network connected device, manage upgrades and “remember” the setup and program files for each controller by serial number, MAC address (link, an address specific to a piece of hardware and stored in the hardware) or other designation that identifies a specific controller. ].
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Weik and Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Weik teaches a bus address has been linked to a role of the door component in the door system during commissioning, wherein the link is stored in the control device [0071 — The server 10 can hold archived program files for the system that programs the FPGA 2, the SBC 5, and the VFD 4 that can be downloaded to each component at point of manufacture specific to door type, voltage, etc. as called for in the production specification and application. The server 10 would also support the data collection from each network connected device, manage upgrades and “remember” the setup and program files for each controller by serial number, MAC address (link, an address specific to a piece of hardware and stored in the hardware) or other designation that identifies a specific controller. ].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrus in view of Davis U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170103647 (hereinafter Davis).
Regarding claim 10, Andrus teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Andrus teaches the door system, comprises a memory, wherein firmware is stored in the memory [0100-0101 — portions of controller 720 or server 760 may be implemented in computer system 1500 using hardware, software, firmware].
But Andrus fails to clearly specify the firmware is independent of the configuration of the motor of the door drive.
However, Davis teaches the firmware is independent of the configuration of the motor of the door drive [0038-0044, Fig. 1 — an electronic locking device 100 comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) 110, a power supply 140, and an electric motor 150… Examples of software may include software components, programs, applications, computer programs, application programs, system programs, machine programs, operating system software, middleware, firmware… Electronic locking device 100 can include additional electronic memory sites if desired and indeed, an example arrangement of PCB 110 is depicted in FIG. 1 as comprising a separate flash memory 118 operatively associated with microprocessor 112… electronic locking device 100 is described and illustrated herein as containing a plurality of separate memory units (non-volatile memory 114, embedded on microprocessor 112, and flash memory 118), it will be understood that electronic locking device 100 may utilize any appropriate arrangement of electronic memory sites to store information, including a single non-volatile memory unit operatively linked to microprocessor 112].
Andrus and Davis are analogous art. They relate to door control systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by Andrus, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Davis.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to organize firmware/flash storage as desired by a user, for example to facilitate updating only a portion of the firmware, as suggested by Davis [0038-0044].
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrus in view of Yulkowski U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110016971 (hereinafter Yulkowski).
Regarding claim 11, Andrus discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Andrus teaches it is predefined in the door system, in the firmware, under which conditions and in what way the motor is to be actuated, whether the door is to be opened or closed by the motor [0047 — rotation of one or more rotatable doors may be controlled by a controller. The controller may coordinate (e.g., synchronize) the rotational movements of one or more rotatable doors. In some embodiments, the controller may receive a signal from one or more devices (e.g., user inputs or sensors) to control the rotational movements of one or more rotatable doors. These signals may be used to open the rotatable doors, close the rotatable doors, stop rotation the rotatable doors, prevent the rotation of the rotatable doors, etc.; 0077 — control system 700 may include one or more sensors 730 in communication with controller 720. In some embodiments, controller 720 may be configured to control the rotation of one or more rotatable doors 710 based on signals received from one or more sensors 730. In some embodiments, controller 720 may be configured to prevent or stop rotation of one or more rotatable doors 710 in response to receiving a signal from one or more sensors 730. For example, if a sensor 730 detects the presence of an object between two rotatable doors in the open position, sensor 730 may send a signal to controller 720 indicating the presence of the object and, in turn, controller 720 may prevent or stop rotation of the two rotatable doors 710. Sensors 730 may include, but are not limited to, a motion sensor, an IR (infrared) sensor, a heat sensor, a touch sensor, a camera, a microphone, or a combination thereof; 0100-0101 — portions of controller 720 or server 760 may be implemented in computer system 1500 using hardware, software, firmware].
But Andrus fails to clearly specify it is predefined in the door system, under which environmental conditions and in what way the motor is to be actuated, wherein in the event of danger whether the door is to be opened or closed by the motor.
However, Yulkowski teaches it is predefined in the door system, in the firmware, under which environmental conditions and in what way the motor is to be actuated, wherein in the event of danger whether the door is to be opened or closed by the motor [0028 — the term module refers to an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), an electronic circuit, a processor (shared, dedicated, or group) and memory that execute one or more software or firmware; 0045 — A hold-open 86 may also be incorporated within the door. The hold-open 86 may operate in response to a sensor 88. The hold-open 86 is illustrated as mounted within the door, but may be also mounted on the door frame. The hold-open 86 holds the door open and in response to sensing a condition at the sensor 88, allows the door to close. The door may close under the operation of the door operator assembly 20. The sensor 88 may, for example, be a smoke detector, a chemical detector, a carbon-monoxide detector, a radiation detector, or other types of sensors that sense conditions suitable for closing a door.; 0048-0050 — , the temperature sensor 119 may be used for detecting fire or for energy management purposes. The temperature sensor 119 may trigger the closing of a door without further interaction. ].
Andrus and Yulkowski are analogous art. They relate to door control systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by Andrus, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Yulkowski.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to prevent a fire spreading, as suggested by Yulkowski [0045-0050].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Andrus and Yulkowski teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Andrus teaches the drive controllers are connected to the same first bus system and/or the process is stored in firmware [0100-0101 — portions of controller 720 or server 760 may be implemented in computer system 1500 using hardware, software, firmware; 0051, Figs. 1-7 — Embodiments of the present invention include a rotating door system 100 for opening and closing a doorway, such as a storefront. Rotating door system 100 may include one or more rotatable doors 110 each defined by two opposing horizontal edges 118, two opposing vertical edges 120, a front surface 122, and a back surface 124. As shown in FIG. 1, each rotatable door 110 has a height 112 measured in a vertical direction 102 between opposing horizontal edges 118 and a width 11; 0076-0079 — In some embodiments, one or more rotatable doors may be rotated under control of a controller, automatically and/or in response to a signal (e.g., a user input). FIG. 7 shows a control system 700 for controlling the rotation of one or more rotatable doors 710 according to an embodiment. As shown in FIG. 7, control system 700 may include a controller 720 in communication with a plurality of rotatable doors 710. Rotatable doors 710 may be, e.g., any rotatable door discussed herein (e.g., doors 110 and 410)… server 760 may send a command to controller 720 to rotate one or more rotatable doors 710 from the closed position to the open position, or vice versa. In some embodiments, server 760 may be a local (e.g., on site) server. In some embodiments, server 760 may be a remote server. In some embodiments, server 760 may be in communication with sensor(s) 730 and/or user inputs 740, either directly or via controller 720. In some embodiments, server 760 may be in communication with a central controller. In such embodiments, controllers 720 at different locations (e.g., different stores 200) may receive commands from the central controller via server 760. For example, a central controller may be configured to send a command to simultaneously open one or more rotatable doors 710 at different locations via server 760].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrus in view of Soderqvist U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210222476 (hereinafter Soderqvist).
Regarding claim 12, Andrus discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Andrus teaches the door system comprises a control device and a plurality of door drives, wherein the door drives each comprise a drive controller, wherein the control device is designed to coordinate the drive controllers for a process [0047 — rotation of one or more rotatable doors may be controlled by a controller. The controller may coordinate (e.g., synchronize) the rotational movements of one or more rotatable doors. In some embodiments, the controller may receive a signal from one or more devices (e.g., user inputs or sensors) to control the rotational movements of one or more rotatable doors. These signals may be used to open the rotatable doors, close the rotatable doors, stop rotation the rotatable doors, prevent the rotation of the rotatable doors, etc.; 0077 — control system 700 may include one or more sensors 730 in communication with controller 720. In some embodiments, controller 720 may be configured to control the rotation of one or more rotatable doors 710 based on signals received from one or more sensors 730. In some embodiments, controller 720 may be configured to prevent or stop rotation of one or more rotatable doors 710 in response to receiving a signal from one or more sensors 730. For example, if a sensor 730 detects the presence of an object between two rotatable doors in the open position, sensor 730 may send a signal to controller 720 indicating the presence of the object and, in turn, controller 720 may prevent or stop rotation of the two rotatable doors 710. Sensors 730 may include, but are not limited to, a motion sensor, an IR (infrared) sensor, a heat sensor, a touch sensor, a camera, a microphone, or a combination thereof; 0100-0101 — portions of controller 720 or server 760 may be implemented in computer system 1500 using hardware, software, firmware].
But Andrus fails to clearly specify the door drives are designed to each be arranged on a door leaf of a double-leaf door and/or on door leaves of doors arranged one behind the other.
However, Soderqvist teaches the door drives are designed to each be arranged on a door leaf of a double-leaf door and/or on door leaves of doors arranged one behind the other [0041-0044, Figs. 1-2 — swing door operator 10 of the swing door operator system 200, 300 as disclosed in FIG. 1, comprises a drive unit 100, a motor 101, a spring 102, a control unit 103, a memory 104 (in the control unit), and optionally an user interface 105 for operation/control, either being wirelessly accessible and/or by wiring, for manual operation and/or automatic. The drive unit 100 is also operatively and/or physically connected to an axle 1, an arm system 2 comprising one or more arms 3, 3A, 3B and/or an arm guide 4; 0036, 0056, Fig. 3 — a single leaf swing door operator system 200, as disclosed in FIG. 2, 4-8 or a double leaf swing door operator system 300 as disclosed in FIG. 3].
Andrus and Soderqvist are analogous art. They relate to door control systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the known double-leaf door system of Soderqvist for the known door system of Andrus for the predictable result of a door control system with drives on a double-leaf door and/or on door leaves of doors arranged one behind the other.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrus in view of Hom et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20030033388 (hereinafter Hom).
Regarding claim 18, Andrus discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Andrus teaches the drive controller and the control device and a motor of the door drive [0076-0080, Fig. 7 — a processor 722 of controller 720 may receive a signal (e.g., from user input 740 or server 760) to open a doorway (e.g., storefront 210), and, in response to receiving the signal, controller 720 may control at least one motor to simultaneously rotate a plurality of rotatable doors defining at least a portion of the doorway about their respective axes of rotation].
But Andrus fails to clearly specify the drive controller and the control device are arranged in a housing, wherein the housing accommodates a motor of the drive.
However, Hom teaches the drive controller and the control device are arranged in a housing, wherein the housing accommodates a motor of the drive [0010 — It will be understood that the controller 12 and gate operating mechanism 11 may be a part of the same unit, e.g., located on the same printed circuit board (not shown) or in the same gate controller housing (not shown) or they could be remote from each other].
Andrus and Hom are analogous art. They relate to door/gate access control systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the known controller/motor housing arrangement of Hom for the known controller/motor arrangement of Andrus for the predictable result of a door control system where a drive controller and the control device are arranged in a housing, wherein the housing accommodates a motor of the drive. In addition, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange these components within the same housing to facilitate communication between them and to reduce mechanical complexity/cost.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Weik and Johnson in view of Engel et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20050061586 (hereinafter Engel).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Weik and Johnson teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Further, Weik teaches the electronic configuration and components of the intended door components of the door system, which are connected to the control device in terms of information technology [0018-0019 — The preferred data connected components of this door control system invention include the following: Mitsubishi VFD (Variable Frequency Drive) or equivalent with its configuration files with or without a data link but with the necessary VFD control functions as I/O on the Control Board, wherein the Control Board is preferably a device known commercially as an SDS-0300 Controller offered commercially through Smartdoor Systems, Inc.;, 0028-0030, Fig. 1 — a schematic view of the system 100 according to the present invention. FIG. 1 shows the power, data or signal pathways between components that switch control signals on and off, and that carry data within the system components that process data signals. The connections between the components that pass data in both directions have arrows at each end…. doors have many control devices used to open; stop, close and safety reverse the door].
But the combination of Weik and Johnson fails to clearly specify the electronic configuration comprises a list of components in which are listed the intended door components of the system.
However, Engel teaches the electronic configuration comprises a list of components in which are listed the intended door components of the system [0014 — the configuration data are transferred to the indicating and control unit so that the check program can be set up there. The check program can, however, also be set up in the elevator controller and then transferred to the processor of the indicating and control unit in order to be worked down there… the components incorporated in the elevator installation are initialized in the check according to the invention. This can be carried out by switching on the elevator installation or also by manual activation of the components by the person carrying out the check. It is possible through the initialization to detect the scope of the incorporated components and to derive therefrom and detect the configuration data of the elevator installation and store the data in the memory of the elevator installation. The configuration data of the elevator installation preferably comprise an identification number and/or a list of all components of the elevator installation which have to be taken into consideration in the check.; 0040 — a door drive controller ADDU is connected to the ECU].
Weik, Johnson and Engel are analogous art. They relate to door control systems.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Weik and Johnson, by incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Engel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce errors and enable a convenient and reliable acceptance check/commissioning of an installation, as taught by Engel [0009-0010].
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peffers et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190026146 discloses that an FPGA is a hardware accelerator.
Salour U.S. Patent No. 10122682 discloses that an FPGA is a hardware accelerator.
Johnston et al. ‘Commodity single board computer clusters and their applications’ Future Generation Computer Systems 89 (2018) 201–212, published 2018, discloses that SBC comprise processors.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119