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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 10 both depend on claim 1, and both recite the door system being in communication with “the mobile terminal.” However, claim 1 does not recite “a mobile terminal.” Claim 3, dependent on claim 1, recites the necessary structural elements to facilitate the functions of claims 9 and 10. This objection can be overcome by amending claims 9 and 10 to recite “
Claim 20 recites “and/”. Examiner believes this is a typo and the claim should recite “and/or”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3, 6 and 9-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites two instances of “in particular,” but this is exemplary claim language and may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. MPEP §2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites “where the door system comprises the following door component, which is connected to the first communication bus.” The claim is indefinite as it fails to list what the following door component is. Accordingly, prior art will not be applied to the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the link,” but this lacks sufficient antecedent basis. MPEP §2173.05(e).
Claim 9 recites “wherein an assignment of the door components with the detection units to the locking devices is stored electronically in the control unit is designed to receive bus addresses of the door component … “. The claim is ambiguous due to lack of grammatical devices (i.e., commas) (i.e., is the assignment designed to receive or is the control unit designed to receive).
Claim 10 recites “in particular,” but this is exemplary claim language and may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. MPEP §2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 14, 17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PALMER (US20150355613A1) in view of WEISSENMAYER (US20200244479A1) (hereinafter “PALMER-WEISSENMAYER”).
Regarding claim 1, PALMER teaches a door system for one or a plurality of doors ([0004]: “access control systems may be used to control devices for use at access points on a site, such as doors”), wherein the door system comprises a plurality of door components ([0007]: “access management controller for controlling one or more building control or access devices in response to one or more events”), wherein one of the door components is designed as a control unit (FIG. 2A & [0099]: control system has door controllers 100, 200, 300),
wherein the control unit is connected to a plurality of further door components (FIG. 2A & [0101]-[0103]: first controller 100 is connected to four devices 120, 121, 122, 123, second controller 200 is connected to four devices 220, 221, 222, 223, third controller 300 is connected to two devices 320, 321).
PALMER is not relied on for wherein the further components are connected to the control unit via a plurality of first communication buses.
However, WEISSENMAYER in an analogous art teaches systems and methods for communication between sensors and control devices ([0003]), comprising a control unit ([0006]: master subscriber station), wherein the further components are connected to the control unit via a plurality of first communication buses ([0006]: “The master subscriber station includes a first transceiver device for transmitting a message to, and/or receiving a message from, at least one slave subscriber station that is subordinate to the master subscriber station in terms of control, via a first sub-bus of the bus system, a second transceiver device for sending a message to and/or receiving message from at least one other subscriber station via a second sub-bus of the bus system”; see annotated WEISSENMAYER – Fig. 1 below shows a control system 1 with a control unit 10 connected to further components/control devices 20, 30, 40, 50 (i.e., sensors, actuators, additional controllers [0016]) via plurality of first buses 61 and 62).
PNG
media_image1.png
727
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WEISSENMAYER – Fig. 1
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of WEISSENMAYER to the teachings of PALMER such that WEISSENMAYER’s control system data transmission method is used with PALMER’s access control system for the purpose of facilitating system modifications or configurations changes (WEISSENMAYER, [0007]: “With the described subscriber station, additional sensor can retroactively be added to an already-existing and proven bus, without a large outlay. As a result, there is less outlay for modification and testing than was previously the case”). Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. PALMER also teaches: wherein the control unit is configured to be connected to a second communication bus ([0079]: network connection 1500),
wherein the control unit is designed to communicate with a computing unit in a cloud via the second communication bus ([0079]: “control system 1 contains a controller 100, connected to a server 500 via network connection 1500”; [0096]-[0097]: connection 1500 could include wired or wireless communication over internet or LAN),
wherein the control unit receives an electronic configuration of the door system via the second communication bus ([0081]-[0082]: “Server 500 is provided with a database 550 which contains logic for controlling all devices in the control system […] server 500 propagates any changes made to the database to the controller 100”).
Regarding claim 4, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. PALMER also teaches: wherein the control unit is designed to make an access decision ([0087]: for access control, controller uses logic to instruct door to unlock).
Regarding claim 14, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. PALMER also teaches:
wherein an image of the door system is stored in the computing unit ([0054]: “By allocating appliance types to each building control or access device, where each appliance type has a behaviour defined by a set of actors, a generic and flexible model for defining a control system is provided. Advantageously, it is possible to customize the model for specific instances of devices”),
wherein past and current operating door system are stored in the computing unit ([0029]: controller retains a log of control decisions/events so controller can use previous data when applying logic; [0152]: controller may send a record of the control provided to the server “It may be useful to have records of these for all the devices in the system stored centrally on the server”).
Regarding claim 17, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above. PALMER also teaches wherein the electronic configuration comprises the following electronic data: door component types of the door system ([0145]: “logic relating to control systems could be categorised into device types and their functions”).
Regarding claim 19, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 4 as outlined above. PALMER also teaches wherein the door system comprises at least one reading unit, wherein the control unit is designed to evaluate a credential received from the reading unit by a received access code being compared with an access code stored in the control unit and/or a time window of the credential being compared with the current time ([0130]: keypad for access code, controller instructs based on determination from signal received from keypad).
Regarding claim 20, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. WEISSENMAYER also teaches wherein the first communication buses are a CAN bus ([0005]: CAN bus system).
Regarding claim 21, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined above. PALMER also teaches wherein the door components connected to a first communication bus each comprise an identifier, wherein the identifiers of the door components are stored as part of the image of the door system in the computing unit in the cloud ([0157]: controller’s live local copy 150 of the subset of the database).
Regarding claim 22, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined above. PALMER also teaches wherein the access system is designed such that the image of the door system is filled with data of the installed door components during or after the installation of the door system ([0157]: controller’s local copy).
Claims 3, 10, 15-16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PALMER (US20150355613A1) in view of WEISSENMAYER (US20200244479A1), in further view of GEHRMANN (EP3267451A1)1, 2 (hereinafter “PALMER-WEISSENMAYER-GEHRMANN”).
Regarding claim 3, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. PALMER-WEISSENMAYER is not relied on for wherein the control unit comprises a transmission unit, in particular a transmitting and/or receiving unit for wireless near-field communication, in particular Bluetooth Low Energy, wherein the transmission unit is used to communicate with a terminal, in particular a mobile terminal, for commissioning, for configuring and/or for access authorization communication.
However, GEHRMANN in an analogous art teaches an access control system comprising a control device, wherein the control device is connected via a first bus to door components ([0005]): wherein the control unit comprises a transmission unit, in particular a transmitting and/or receiving unit for wireless near-field communication, in particular Bluetooth Low Energy, wherein the transmission unit is used to communicate with a terminal, in particular a mobile terminal, for commissioning, for configuring and/or for access authorization communication ([0105]: “For parameterization, the control device 100 can communicate with a mobile communication device via a radio module 64”; [0300]: parameterization from mobile device via bluetooth).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GEHRMANN to the teachings of PALMER-WEISSENMAYER combination such that GEHRMANN’s transmission unit could be used with PALMER-WEISSENMAYER’s access control system for the purposes of facilitating retrofit applications. Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 10, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. PALMER also teaches:
wherein the door system is designed to receive a change of the configuration or an update of the configuration of the door system ([0043]: “system settings which govern the logic or rules for controlling the devices, and allowing the user to alter these, it is possible for a system administrator to change settings”), and
wherein an escape route security system is configurable ([0133]: controller stores logic for controlling door control mechanism in emergency situations).
PALMER-WEISSENMAYER are not relied on for wherein a configuration of the escape route security system is only permitted on site, in particular takes place via wireless near-field communication with the mobile terminal.
However, GEHRMANN in an analogous art does teach this claim limitation ([0047]-[0048]: in order to execute functions for safety system for controlling and/or monitoring at least one door lock for escape route protection, parameters can be stored in the control device, parameters can be set by an operator via the parameterization program, control device can communicate via radio module for parameterization).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GEHRMANN to the teachings of PALMER-WEISSENMAYER such that GEHRMANN’s parameterization program can be used with PALMER-WEISSENMAYER’s access control system for the purposes of facilitating retrofit applications.
Regarding claim 15, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. PALMER also teaches:
wherein the control unit is designed to receive an access attribute for authentication ([0087]: controller receives a signal indicating that an access card with credentials has been presented to reader),
wherein the door system is designed, based on the access attribute or the type of use of the access attribute, to decide whether a locking element is actuated for opening a door or locking elements are actuated for opening a plurality of doors ([0087]: controller may use logic to determine whether to unlock a door).
PALMER-WEISSENMAYER are not relied on for wherein the door comprises door leaves.
However, GEHRMANN in an analogous art does teach this claim limitation ([0031]: devices are provided for a door leaf and/or a door lock; [0147]: “two-leaf door”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GEHRMANN to PALMER-WEISSENMAYER such that GEHRMANN’s door comprising multiple leaves can be used with PALMER-WEISSENMAYER’s access control for a building comprising a leaf-style type door.
Regarding claim 16, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above. PALMER-WEISSENMAYER are not relied on for wherein during commissioning on site a bus address of the door components has been linked to a function of the respective door component in the door system, and in that the control unit has knowledge of which bus address is linked to which function, processes are carried out via the first communication buses, wherein it is sufficient that the functions of the door components are stored in a functional process in the configuration.
However, GEHRMANN in an analogous art does teach this claim limitation ([0073]: assignments for the selective execution of the functions are stored in the control devices, assignments can indicate to which authentication signal which locking mechanism is to be controlled according to function; [0117]: electronic unit and the door lock controller may each be assigned a bus address).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GEHRMANN to the teachings of PALMER-WEISSENMAYER such that the assignments of GEHRMANN can be used with PALMER-WEISSENMAYER’S control system.
Regarding claim 23, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined above. PALMER also teaches a computer application designed to have knowledge of an identifier of a door component during commissioning on site, and is designed to display possible positions, possible door component types and/or possible required door components on the terminal, wherein the correct position, the correct door component type and/or the correct required door component type can be selected on the application by the installer and the position and/or the door component type and/or the required door component can be assigned to the identifier, wherein the application is designed to send the successful assignment to the control unit ([0042]: computer application for controller access control system).
PALMER-WEISSENMAYER are not relied on for a mobile terminal.
However, GEHRMANN in an analogous art does teach a mobile terminal for implementing access control solutions ([0048]: mobile communication device).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of GEHRMANN to the teachings of PALMER-WEISSENMAYER such that PALMER-WEISSENMAYER’s computer application could be configured as a smartphone application for the purposes of being used with GEHRMANN’s mobile communication device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PALMER (US20150355613A1) in view of WEISSENMAYER (US20200244479A1), in further view of KASTNER et al. (“Communication Systems for Building Automation and Control”, published 6/6/2005. Retrieved from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1435745. Accessed on 12/16/2025.).
Regarding claim 5, REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 19 as outlined above. REF1-REF2 are not relied on for wherein the reading unit or reading units and the control unit are connected to an RS 485 bus.
However, KASTNER in an analogous art does teach this claim limitation (Pg. 14, A. Subsystem Solutions: serial communication using a simple master-slave protocol using EIA-485).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of KASTNER to the teachings of PALMER-WEISSENMAYER such that the master-slave communication protocol of KASTNER could be used with the master-slave control system of PALMER-WEISSENMAYER for the purposes of system implementation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PALMER (US20150355613A1) in view of WEISSENMAYER (US20200244479A1), in further view of KIKUCHI (US20120032775A1) (hereinafter “PALMER-WEISSENMAYER-KIKUCHI”).
Regarding claim 9, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. PALMER-WEISSENMAYER is not relied on for wherein the door system comprises a plurality of door components with detection units for receiving an access attribute and a plurality of locking devices, wherein an assignment of the door components with the detection units to the locking devices is stored electronically in the control unit is designed to receive bus addresses of the door components with the detection units linked to a function of the door components in the door system during commission on site, wherein the link can be received by the mobile terminal.
However, KIKUCHI in an analogous art teaches an access control system and methods of controlling exit and entry through a door:
wherein the door system comprises a plurality of door components with detection units for receiving an access attribute and a plurality of locking devices ([0027]: “electric locks 22 and reader terminals 23 are disposed in a plurality depending on the scope of the entry/exit controlling system 1”; [0031]: “reader terminals 23 on both sides (the entry side and the exit side) of the door 21”),
wherein an assignment of the door components with the detection units to the locking devices is stored electronically in the control unit is designed to receive bus addresses of the door components with the detection units linked to a function of the door components in the door system during commissioning on site, wherein the link can be received by the mobile terminal ([0032]-[0033]: evaluation processing device 30 is a controller that performs facilities control and monitoring and has a function for performing entry/exit authorization evaluations […] function portions of evaluation processing device 30 are connected to each other through an internal bus so as to enable the exchange of data).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of KIKUCHI to the teachings of PALMER-WEISSENMAYER such that KIKUCHI’s entry and exit access methods could be used with PALMER-WEISSENMAYER’s access control system for security purposes, such as identifying who enters and when they exit a building(s) or part of a building. Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PALMER (US20150355613A1) in view of WEISSENMAYER (US20200244479A1), in further view of GEHRMANN (EP3267451A1), in further view of JOHNSON (US20170169679A1).
Regarding claim 18, PALMER-WEISSENMAYER-GEHRMANN teaches the elements of claim 16 as outlined above. PALMER-WEISSENMAYER-GEHRMANN are not relied on for wherein the door system is configured such that during commissioning on site, if a door component type is only present once in the door system, the door component reports its door component type to the control unit, wherein the control unit links the door component type and thus the function to the bus address of the door component.
However, JOHNSON an analogous art teaches this claim limitation ([0199]: pairing process).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of JOHNSON to the teachings of PALMER-WEISSENMAYER-GEHRMANN such that JOHNSON’s pairing process can be used with PALMER-WEISSENMAYER-GEHRMANN’s access control system for the purposes of implementing the access control system. Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trout et al. (US20210087852A1) teaches a building security system wherein doors are unlocked to provide an evacuation path.
Comello (US20180315150A1) teaches a building security system comprising an evacuation module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571) 272-3667. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/VINCENT H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 GEHRMANN was submitted on Applicant’s IDS dated 8/22/2023.
2 GEHRMANN citations to examiner provided translation.