DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The amendment filed 5/26/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Claim 1: The claim limitation “wherein the at least one monitoring sensor uses the same electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring as the door drive uses” is not found in the disclosure as originally filed. Applicants specification recites “Furthermore, electrical supply sources and data lines already provided in the area of the door drive can be connected directly to the monitoring sensor and used”. This is not inherently the same as “the at least one monitoring sensor uses the same electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring as the door drive uses”. In other words, using “electrical supply sources and data lines” that are “already provided in the area of the door drive” for connecting to the monitoring sensor is not inherently the same as “the at least one monitoring sensor uses the same electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring as the door drive uses”. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1 and 3-11 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the at least one monitoring sensor uses the same electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring as the door drive uses”. This limitation is awkwardly worded and renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear what is being claimed (i.e. how are the “electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring” the same? What exactly is being claimed by the term “the same”? Is every electrical supply source, data line, and wire used by the door drive also used by the monitoring sensor? Are the electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring simply the same type, manufacturer, etc.?). Examiner notes that no description with regard to “the same” electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring being used, can be found in the disclosure as originally filed, and it is unclear what is intended to be claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-11 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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, 4, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Uno et al. (US 2015/0054294) (hereinafter Uno).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Uno discloses a device for monitoring a doorway of a vehicle (See Figure 1), wherein the doorway is closed with a single leaf or double-leaf door system (Figure 1, elements 11A and 11B), comprising at least one monitoring sensor (element 94), [which is configured to monitor a monitoring area enclosing the doorway]*, adjacent to the doorway or spaced apart from the doorway, wherein the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged directly on a door drive (considered at least elements 90, 90a, and surrounding components, See at least paragraph [0093], “motor rotation amount sensor 94 is a rotary encoder, for example, and detects the rotation amount of the output shaft 90a of the electric motor 90”), and data lines and electrical supply sources provided in the area of the door drive are directly connected to the at least one monitoring sensor (Examiner notes that “electrical supply sources” are necessarily “directly connected” to element 94, since element 94 is an electrically powered sensor, and requires electrical power to function), wherein the at least one monitoring sensor uses the same electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring as the door drive uses (Examiner notes that, as best understood, the “electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring” are “the same”, since the sensor is directly connected to and integrated with the door drive) , wherein the at least one monitoring sensor is directly mounted in or attached to a housing of the door drive (See at least paragraph [0057], “Examiner notes that all door drive components and the sensor are “attached” either directly or indirectly to the “housing” disclosed in paragraph [0057]).
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a device for monitoring a doorway, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the device for monitoring a doorway disclosed by Uno is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 4, Uno discloses wherein the double-leaf door system has two door leaves, and the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged in the area of a closing edge between the door leaves (See Figure 1, Examiner notes that the monitoring sensor and closing edge of the door leaves are in the same “area”).
Regarding claim 9, Uno discloses wherein the at least one monitoring sensor is an optical sensor or an electromagnetic radiation-based sensor.
Regarding claim 11, Uno discloses a vehicle (See at least paragraph [0001-0002]) comprising a doorway which is closed with a single-leaf or double-leaf door system, wherein the single-leaf door system has one door leaf and the double-leaf door system has two door leaves, further including a device for monitoring the doorway designed according to claim 1.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by DE102005011116.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, DE102005011116 discloses a device for monitoring a doorway of a vehicle, wherein the doorway is closed with a single-leaf or double-leaf door system, comprising at least one monitoring sensor (element 5), which is configured to monitor a monitoring area, wherein the monitoring area is enclosing the doorway, adjacent to the doorway, or spaced apart from the doorway, wherein the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged directly on the door drive (element 3), and data lines and electrical supply sources provided in the area of the door drive are directly connected to the at least one monitoring sensor (Examiner notes that “electrical supply sources” are necessarily “directly connected” to element 5, since element 5 is an electrically powered sensor, and requires electrical power to function), wherein the at least one monitoring sensor uses the same electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring as the door drive uses (Examiner notes that, as best understood, the “electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring” used by the sensor monitor (element 5) are considered to be the “same” as the “electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring” used by the drive box (element 3), since element 5 is mounted directly on element 3, and “the same” electrical wiring, etc. would necessarily be used for both element 5 and element 3), wherein the at least one monitoring sensor is directly mounted in or attached to a housing of the door drive (See Figure 1. Examiner notes that element 5 is “mounted in or attached to a housing” of element 3).
Regarding claim 3, DE102005011116 discloses wherein the single-leaf door system has a door leaf (element 1), and in that the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged in the area of a closing edge between the door leaf and the doorway.
Regarding claim 4, DE102005011116 discloses wherein the double-leaf door system has two door leaves (elements 1 and 2), and the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged in the area of a closing edge between the door leaves.
Regarding claim 7, DE102005011116 discloses wherein the size and orientation of the monitoring area are flexibly adapted.
Regarding claim 8, DE102005011116 discloses wherein a plurality of monitoring sensors of the same or different types are provided (See at least paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, DE102005011116 discloses wherein the at least one monitoring sensor is an optical sensor or an electromagnetic radiation-based sensor (See at least paragraph [0026).
Regarding claim 10, DE102005011116 discloses wherein the optical sensor is a camera (See at least paragraph [0026]), or in that the electromagnetic radiation-based sensor is a radar sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a microwave sensor, a lidar sensor, a laser scanner-based sensor or an infrared sensor.
Regarding claim 11, DE102005011116 discloses a vehicle comprising: a doorway which is closed with a single-leaf or double-leaf door system, wherein the single-leaf door system has one door leaf and the double-leaf door system has two door leaves, further including a device for monitoring the doorway designed according to claim 1.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Reddy (US 3,745,705).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Reddy discloses a doorway monitoring device configured for monitoring a doorway of a vehicle, wherein the doorway is closed with a single-leaf or double- leaf door system, comprising at least one monitoring sensor (considered at least elements 58 and 59), which is configured to monitor a monitoring area, wherein the monitoring area is enclosing the doorway, adjacent to the doorway, or spaced apart from the doorway, wherein the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged directly on a door drive (Figure 1, considered numerous elements for driving doors 12 and 13, including but not limited to elements 17, 26, 27, 37, 25), and data lines and electrical supply sources provided in the area of the door drive are also directly connected to the at least one monitoring sensor (column 4, lines 19-22, “It should also be appreciated that an obstruction sensor for detecting an obstruction at the leading edge of a door panel during closing can be built into the operator”) , wherein the at least one monitoring sensor uses the same electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring as the door drive uses (Examiner notes that, as best understood, the at least one monitoring sensor is an electromechanical switch that necessarily uses “the same electrical supply sources, data lines, and wiring as the door drive uses”), wherein the at least one monitoring sensor is directly mounted in or attached to a housing of the door drive (See at least Figure 1, the door drive is shown enclosed in a “housing”).
Regarding claim 3, Reddy discloses wherein the single-leaf door system has a door leaf (Column 3, lines 37-41, “Although the door operator of the invention is shown in connection with driving bi-parting door panels, it should be appreciated that it could likewise be used for a single door where a single screw shaft and nut assembly would be utilized”), and in that the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged in the area of a closing edge between the door leaf and the doorway (Examiner notes that the sensor is “in the area” of the closing edge).
Regarding claim 4, Reddy discloses wherein the double-leaf door system has two door leaves (See Figure 1), and the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged in the area of a closing edge between the door leaves (Examiner notes that the sensor is “in the area” of the closing edge).
Regarding claim 5, Reddy discloses wherein, in the case of a single-leaf door system, the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged in a retractable manner with respect to the door leaf and a vehicle exterior panel adjoining the doorway (Examiner notes that the sensor of Reddy is movable and therefore considered “retractable” with respect to the vehicle exterior).
Regarding claim 6, Reddy discloses wherein, in the case of a double-leaf door system, the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged in a retractable manner with respect to the door leaves and possibly a vehicle exterior panel adjoining the doorway (Examiner notes that the sensor of Reddy is movable and therefore considered “retractable” with respect to the vehicle exterior).
Regarding claim 7, Reddy discloses wherein the size and orientation of the monitoring area are flexibly adapted (Examiner notes that the “size and orientation of the monitoring area” change as the doors open and close, and the area is therefore “flexibly adapted”).
Regarding claim 8, Reddy discloses wherein a plurality of monitoring sensors of the same or different types are provided (Examiner notes that each door 12 and 13 include a monitoring sensor).
Regarding claim 11, Reddy discloses a vehicle comprising: a doorway (See Figure 1, column 2, lines 19-21) which is closed with a single-leaf or double-leaf door system, wherein the single-leaf door system has one door leaf and the double-leaf door system has two door leaves, further including a doorway monitoring device for monitoring the doorway designed according to claim 1.
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102005011116 in view of Kiehl (US 2016/0176346).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, DE102005011116 lacks where the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged in a retractable manner with respect to the door leaf and a vehicle exterior panel adjoining the doorway. Kiehl, however, teaches that it is known in the art to configure a vehicle that includes a camera used as a monitoring sensor, and wherein the camera is a retractable camera (See at least Abstract, Figures 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the “combination sensor” (element 5) of DE102005011116 such that it is retractable, as taught by Kiehl, as this would ensure that the combination sensor is concealed when not in use, which would help to protect the combination sensor from incurring unwanted damage, from events such as severe weather and vandalism. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “Turning to '116 …. There is no indication that the sensor is arranged directly on the door drive … Furthermore, there is no indication that the sensor device 5 is directly mounted in or attached to a housing of the door drive”. Examiner disagrees and notes that this argument is unclear, since Figure 1 of DE102005011116 clearly and explicitly illustrates “the sensor arranged directly on the door drive”, as the sensor device 5 is directly mounted in or attached to a housing of the door drive 3.
Regarding the argument “Uno discloses a base 5 that is fixed on a side wall of the vehicle. Applicant respectfully asserts that the door drive is clearly not part of the side wall of the vehicle. Instead, the door drive is disposed inside the vehicle or behind the doors, when the doors are closed. Therefore, Uno does not teach or disclose the above-cited claim 1 limitations”. This argument is unclear, as the claim includes no limitations with regard to “the door drive” being “part of the side wall of the vehicle” or being “disposed inside the vehicle or behind the doors”. Uno recites “A plate-like base 5 is fixed above the entrance 101 on a side wall (housing) of the vehicle”, and therefore “wherein the at least one monitoring sensor is directly mounted in or attached to a housing of the door drive” is considered to be fully satisfied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights