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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg . 3, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to Claims 1-8 and 10-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of 12/15/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim 1, Applicant claims that the referenced art fails to teach the amended claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Wulbrandt teaches wherein the door system comprises a plurality of door components, 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 requires an action by an installer, 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 by the installer and/or an authentication of the installer, 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 action of the installer corresponds to an action of a user during operation of the door system (pg. 3, second paragraph: In particular, the door system can have at least one of the following components or units: at least one door component, in particular a door or a door leaf, wherein preferably the door component is movably mounted, at least one drive unit, the drive unit being in operative connection with the door component in order to bring the door component into at least one movement state for carrying out at least one door function, at least one recognition unit for determining at least one drive parameter, the drive parameter preferably being correlated with the door function, at least one control unit for controlling (i.e. in particular initiating and / or controlling and / or regulating) at least the drive unit and / or at least the door function, at least one transmission unit for transmitting and / or transmitting and / or receiving information, in particular of the at least one drive parameter determined by the detection unit; pg. 21, third paragraph: According to an advantageous development of the invention, it can be provided that the functional test result, in particular with the at least one drive parameter, is transmitted to a service communication unit, so that remote maintenance of the door system can take place on the basis of the functional test result, and in particular on the basis of the drive parameter, preferably the remote maintenance at least an initiation of a door function and / or function of the communication unit, preferably a function for providing an augmented reality as a computer-aided extension of the perception of reality for the user of the communication unit. Preferably, the service communication unit such as the communication unit, for example. As a smartphone, be executed or executed differently, for example, as a computer or laptop or the like. For example. For example, the communication unit and / or the service communication unit and / or the storage system and / or a transmission unit of the door system can be connected via a network. The network may, for example, at least partially a wired data network and / or a Radio network, in particular mobile network, include. The provision of an augmented reality as a computer-aided extension of the perception of reality (augmented reality) can be done, for example, by the use of further aids. For example. For example, the communication unit may be connected to a pair of glasses (with display and / or camera) to provide the augmented reality function. Furthermore, it may be possible to additionally transmit audio and / or video information to the communication unit (for example, by the service communication unit). This may, for example, include information and / or instructions for maintenance and / or error checking in the door system. Thus, the advantage can be achieved that a user can carry out a maintenance and / or error check on the door system in a simple, safe and comfortable manner, in particular using support means, such as the augmented reality function).
It is for this reason, the examiner maintains the 102 rejection.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, 15, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 door system comprises a plurality of door components, 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 (pg. 3, second paragraph), wherein the test function requires an action by an installer, 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 by the installer and/or an authentication of the installer, 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 action of the installer corresponds to an action of a user during operation of the door system (pg. 21, third paragraph; pg .13, second paragraph; Claim 1).
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 test function corresponds to an operating function that is carried out by the door system during operation of the door system
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, Wulbrandt further teaches 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, Wulbrandt further teaches a door system and/or door arrangement for carrying out the method according to claim 1 (pg. 23).
Regarding Claim 19, Wulbrandt further teaches 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, Wulbrandt further teaches 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, Wulbrandt further teaches the method according to claim 1, 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.).
Regarding Claim 22, Wulbrandt teaches a method for commissioning a door system, wherein the door system has at least one door component (pg. 3, second paragraph), wherein the commissioning comprises the following method step: a. carrying out an electronically defined test process of the door system, wherein the door system comprises a plurality of door components, wherein the electronically defined test process comprising carrying out at least one test function, wherein the test function comprising a functional interaction of a plurality of door components (Claim 1), wherein at least the test function for carrying out the test function comprises the interaction of the following door components: a signal transmitter which generates a signal for changing a door state, wherein the signal causes another door component to change the door state and a door drive, a signal transmitter which generates a signal for changing a door state (pg .12, second to last paragraph), wherein the signal causes another door component to change the door state and a locking device (pg. 4, fourth paragraph), a plurality of door drives, a plurality of locking devices, at least one door drive and at least one locking device (pg .12, second to last paragraph, pg. 4, fourth paragraph), wherein the test function requires an action by an installer, 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 by the installer and/or an authentication of the installer (pg. 16 last paragraph through pg. 17, first two paragraphs; pg. 21, third paragraph; pg .13, second paragraph; Claim 1), 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 (pg. 21, third paragraph; pg .13, second paragraph; Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 23, Wulbrandt teaches a method for commissioning a door system, wherein the door system has a plurality of door components which are designed to be arranged on at least one door (pg. 4, last paragraph; pg. 14, second to last paragraph), wherein different door component assemblies each are referred to different door system types (pg. 4, last paragraph), wherein the commissioning comprises the following method step: a. carrying out an electronically defined test process of the door system, wherein the door system comprises a control unit (pg. 3, second paragraph), wherein the method is carried out at least partially by means of the mobile terminal (pg. 13, first paragraph), wherein a computer program product for carrying out the test process is loaded from a computing unit onto the control unit and/or the mobile terminal (pg. 17), wherein the test process is defined for a preconfigured door system type, wherein the computing unit comprises a database in which at least one computer program product for carrying out respectively one predefined test process is stored for each preconfigured door system type, wherein the electronically defined test process comprising carrying out at least one test function, wherein the test function comprising a functional interaction of a plurality of door components (pg. 16-17), wherein the test function requires an action by an installer, wherein it is displayed or output on the 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 by the installer and/or an authentication of the installer(pg. 16 last paragraph through pg. 17, first two paragraphs; pg. 21, third paragraph; pg .13, second paragraph; Claim 1), 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 (pg. 21, third paragraph; pg .13, second paragraph; Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 24, Wulbrandt teaches door system and/or door arrangement for carrying out the method according to claim 22 (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 25. Wulbrandt teaches A computer program product for carrying out the method according to claim 22, wherein the at least one computer program product can be stored in the door system (pg. 17).
Regarding Claim 26, Wulbrandt teaches door system and/or door arrangement for carrying out the method according to claim 23 (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 25. Wulbrandt teaches A computer program product for carrying out the method according to claim 23, wherein the at least one computer program product can be stored in the door system (pg. 17).
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 to as 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights