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 .
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 1-8, and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
a method for commissioning a door system, wherein the door system has at least one door component, wherein the commissioning comprises the following method step:
carrying out an electronically defined test process of the door system wherein the test process comprises a plurality of test steps and/or a plurality of test functions, wherein the sequence of the test steps and/or test functions is stored electronically in the test process, wherein the test process is defined for a preconfigured door system type.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “carrying out an electronically defined test process of the door system wherein the test process comprises a plurality of test steps and/or a plurality of test functions, wherein the sequence of the test steps and/or test functions is stored electronically in the test process, wherein the test process is defined for a preconfigured door system type” is treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
There are no additional elements:
In conclusion, the claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-8, and 10-21 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, 15, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wulbrandt et al. (EP3349185A1, 2018-07-18) herein referred toas Wulbrandt.
Regarding Claim 1, Wulbrandt teaches a method for commissioning a door system (Abstract), wherein the door system has at least one door component (Abstract), wherein the commissioning comprises the following method step:
a. carrying out an electronically defined test process of the door system wherein the test process (Fig. 4-5; PG. 8, para. 3) comprises a plurality of test steps and/or a plurality of test functions, wherein the sequence of the test steps and/or test functions is stored electronically in the test process, wherein the test process is defined for a preconfigured door system type (pg. 2, para 6).
Regarding Claim 2, Wulbrandt further teachers the method according to claim 1, wherein the electronically defined test process comprises carrying out at least one test step, wherein the test step corresponds to an operating step which is carried out by the door system during operation of the door system wherein at least the test step is designed as:- a motorized door opening, - a motorized door closure, - a motorized door stop, - an electrically performed door unlocking, - an electrically performed door lock, - electrically establishing a requirement for manual unlocking and/or locking or - a visual or acoustic indication of a state of the door system (pg. 2, para 4-5).
Regarding Claim 3, Wulbrandt further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the door system comprises a plurality of door components (pg. 3-5), wherein the electronically defined test process comprises carrying out at least one test function, wherein the test function comprises a functional interaction of a plurality of door components, wherein the test function corresponds to an operating function that is carried out by the door system during operation of the door system
Regarding Claim 4, Wulbrandt further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the test function requires an action by a user, wherein it is displayed or output on a mobile terminal of an installer, which action the installer has to perform in order for the test function to be successful, wherein the action comprises a local positioning of the installer, an actuation of a door component, an opening and/or closing of the door and/or an authentication of the installer (pg .13, second paragraph; Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Wulbrandt further teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the mobile terminal displays or outputs the action that the installer has to perform in order for the test function to be successful in the form of plain text, wherein the installer makes inputs in plain text in the mobile terminal, so that the mobile terminal can, if necessary, instruct a repetition of the action or another action from a test process for testing the door system (pg. 21, second paragraph (large paragraph).
Regarding Claim 8, Wulbrandt further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile terminal displays or outputs a time interval in which the installer has to perform the action and/or wherein the installer has to perform a plurality of actions, wherein the order of the actions and, if necessary, the time intervals for carrying out the actions are displayed or output to the installer by the mobile terminal (pg. 21, second paragraph (large paragraph).
Regarding Claim 10, Wulbrandt further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the door system comprises a plurality of door components, wherein a functional interaction of the door components is configured to be verified by the test process, wherein the door components are provided to be arranged on a plurality of doors and/or the door components are designed differently from one another, wherein a functional interaction of the door components is configured to be verified by the test process Page 4, last paragraph; page 17, 19).
Regarding Claim 11, Wulbrandt further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one desired test result is stored in the electronically stored test process, wherein the result of a test step, a test function or the test process can be determined using a sensor and/or a control device of the door system, wherein the desired test result is compared electronically with the determined test result and/or a test run, a test function or a test step is positively completed by the mobile in that the result to be expected is displayed or output by the mobile terminal and confirmed by way of an input (page 21, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 12, Wulbrandt further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, if a comparison of the desired test result with the determined test result is negative, a fault is searched for electronically by the door system, wherein the error and/or a troubleshooting option is displayed or output by the mobile terminal, wherein the troubleshooting option comprises replacing a door and/or setting a parameter by the installer, wherein the parameter is set on the mobile terminal and/or wherein an immediate input option for setting the parameter that is used for troubleshooting is a troubleshooting option (page 19, paragraphs 1-4; page 20, third paragraph).
Regarding Claim 15, Wulbrandt further teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the test process is stored in an electronic control unit of the door system and/or in a mobile terminal
Regarding Claim 17, the method according to claim 1, wherein the door system comprises a plurality of different door components, wherein a functional interaction of the door components, can be verified by the test process, wherein the functional interaction corresponds to the cooperation of the door components in the operation of the door system, wherein the cooperation is implemented by firmware, wherein the firmware is stored on the control unit and/or wherein door components connected to the first bus system cooperate by the firmware (pg. 11, second paragraph; pg. 4 last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 18, A door system and/or door arrangement for carrying out the method according to claim 1 (pg. 23).
Regarding Claim 19, A computer program product for carrying out the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one computer program product can be stored in the door system (Claims 1-5).
Regarding Claim 20, The method according to claim 2, wherein the test process comprises a plurality of test steps, wherein the sequence of the test steps is stored electronically in the test process, wherein the sequence of the plurality of test steps is carried out automatically and/or in a predefined order one after the other (Claims 1-5; pg. 17, second para.; page 21, last para.; pg. 2, second to last para.).
Regarding Claim 21, The method according to claim 4, wherein the test process comprises a plurality of test functions, wherein the sequence of the test functions is stored electronically in the test process, wherein the sequence of the test functions is carried out automatically and/or in a predefined order one after the other (Claims 1-5; pg. 17, second para.; page 21, last para.; pg. 2, second to last para.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wulbrandt as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Bharara et al. (US20200349228A1, 2020-11-05) herein referred to as Bharara.
Regarding Claim 6, Wulbrandt teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Wulbrandt fails to teach wherein the mobile terminal comprises a typeset-based database and/or an AI-based assistance system, through which
a. the mobile terminal translates into plain text actions stored in machine language that the installer has to perform in order for the test function to be successful, and/or
b. the mobile terminal translates into machine language inputs entered by the installer in plain text in order to process them and
However, in a related field, Bharara teaches wherein the mobile terminal comprises a typeset-based database and/or an AI-based assistance system, through which
a. the mobile terminal translates into plain text actions stored in machine language that the installer has to perform in order for the test function to be successful, and/or
b. the mobile terminal translates into machine language inputs entered by the installer in plain text in order to process them and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wulbrandt to incorporate the teachings of Bharara by including the limitations above in order to accurately or meaningfully respond to very specific requests, or requests provided in a very specific way.
Regarding Claim 7, Wulbrandt teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Wulbrandt fails to teach wherein the mobile terminal has a voice processing device, wherein the output of plain text by the mobile terminal
However, in a related field, Bharara teaches wherein the mobile terminal has a voice processing device, wherein the output of plain text by the mobile terminal
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wulbrandt to incorporate the teachings of Bharara by including the limitations above in order to accurately or meaningfully respond to very specific requests, or requests provided in a very specific way.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wulbrandt et al. (EP3349185A1, 2018-07-18) herein referred toas Wulbrandt.
Regarding Claim 13, Wulbrandt teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Wulbrandt fails to specifically teach wherein if a comparison of the desired test result with the determined test result is negative, the completion of the commissioning of the door system is denied, wherein a repetition of the test process at the end of commissioning is only possible by the stored test process and/or wherein, if at least for a first test function, for which the comparison of the desired test result with the test result of the test function carried out is negative, and for at least one second test function, for which the comparison of the desired test result with the test result of the test function carried out is positive, the first test function is to be repeated, wherein the second test function is not to be repeated.
Wulbrandt does however teach performing functional test, manually, remotely or automatically with instructions stored in a memory. It would be both implicit and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the door is not put in to operation after fault detection/error and further that a failed functions check need be repeated to ensure safe and reliable operation.
Regarding Claim 14, Wulbrandt teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Wulbrandt fails to specifically teach that the result of the successful, positive test process is stored in a door, and/or a test process log is created, wherein the test process log can be electronically signed by the installer and/or by an inspector.
Wulbrandt however does teach protected access to stored information by means of authentication on the storage system of the door system (pg. 16-17). Wulbrandt further discloses the possibility of configuring the door system on the basis of analysis and/or evaluation; the existing configuration first transmitted from the door system to storage, modified, then transferred back to the door system (pg. 16-17). It is therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the analysis/evaluation (i.e. positive test log) is stored in the door and that a record of who (the installer or maintainer) modified the log would be captured due to the necessity of authentication.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wulbrandt as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Marchetto et al. (EP2119125B1, 2013-03-27), herein referred toas Marchetto.
Regarding Claim 16, Wulbrandt teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Wulbrandt further teaches wherein at least a plurality of the door components which are verified by the test process (pg. 4 last paragraph; Claims 1-5).
Wulbrandt fails to specifically teach connected to a first bus system, wherein the control unit is connected to the first bus system, wherein the control unit receives via the first bus system a behavior and/or a state of the door components involved in the test process.
However, in a related field, Marchetto teaches connected to a first bus system, wherein the control unit is connected to the first bus system, wherein the control unit receives via the first bus system a behavior and/or a state of the door components involved in the test process ([0001-0004]; [0015-0023]; [0033]; [0042]; Claim 1; Fig. 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wulbrandt to incorporate the teachings of Marchetto by including the limitations in order to allow the control unit to send/receive information/data to the component of the door system.
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Wiens-Kind et al. (SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMMISSIONING BUILDING EQUIPMENT WITH MOBILE SERVER, 2020-06-25) teaches a mobile commissioning device for commissioning building equipment in or around a building includes a processing circuit. The processing circuit includes a processor and memory storing instructions executed by the processor. The processing circuit establishes location of the mobile commissioning device and building equipment within the building. The processing circuit also detects and receives commissioning data from building equipment located within a building zones of the building as the mobile commissioning device moves between the building zones. The processing circuit further stores the commissioning data from the building equipment in a temporary commissioning database within the mobile commissioning device and transmits the commissioning data from the temporary commissioning database to a permanent server;
Duval (MOTORIZED DRIVE DEVICE OF A DOMOTIC CLOSURE INSTALLATION, 2016-05-20) teaches A motorized driving device (2) of a home automation closing system (1) comprises an electromechanical actuator (6), an electronic control unit (8), a wireless transmitter (12) operatively connected to the electronic unit control unit (8), the wireless transmitter (12) being configured to cooperate with a peripheral device (4) by wireless communication. The electronic control unit (8) comprises a power supply socket (15). And the wireless transmitter (12) is electrically connected to the power supply socket (15) of the electronic control unit (8), so as to control the peripheral device (4) by means of communication without thread.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2863