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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 12/08/2025 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:
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, and 12: Changing the claim term “at least one monitoring sensor” to “at least one room monitoring sensor” is new matter. The word “room” is not found in Applicants disclosure as originally filed. Additionally, the term “at least one room monitoring sensor” is not inherently the same as “at least one monitoring sensor”, and can be interpreted to have a different meaning or definition.
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 3-12 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, and 12 changed the claim term “at least one monitoring sensor” to “at least one room monitoring sensor”. This renders the claims indefinite, since the term “at least one room monitoring sensor” is not found in Applicants disclosure as originally filed, and it is unclear what exactly Applicant is claiming with the term “at least one room monitoring sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-8 and 10 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, 3-4, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by DE102018115274.
Regarding claim 1, DE102018115274 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, element 120), comprising at least one room monitoring sensor (considered at least elements 125, 150), [which is designed 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 (See Figure 1, element 125 is considered to be “mounted on the door drive”, as the term “the door drive” is considered to be extremely broad, and is considered header portion of vehicle as shown in Figure 1, including at least elements 145 and 110. Also see paragraph [0026], “According to one embodiment, the environment detection device 125 is part of the monitoring device 110”. Examiner notes that element 110 is considered to be part of the drive device), and electrical supply sources provided in the area of the door drive are directly connected to the at least one monitoring sensor (See Figure 1, Examiner notes that “electrical supply sources” are necessarily “directly connected” to element 125, since element 125 is an electrically powered sensor, and requires electrical power to function.
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 DE102018115274 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 3, DE102018115274 discloses wherein the single-leaf door system has a door leaf (See Figure 1, DE102018115274 includes a single door leaf), and in that the at least one monitoring sensor (element 150) is arranged in the area of a closing edge between the door leaf and the doorway.
Regarding claim 4, DE102018115274 discloses wherein the double-leaf door system has two door leaves, and the at least one monitoring sensor (element 150) is arranged in the area of a closing edge between the door leaves.
Regarding claim 7, DE102018115274 discloses wherein the size and orientation of the monitoring area are flexibly adapted (See at least paragraph [0026])
Regarding claim 8, DE102018115274 discloses wherein a plurality of monitoring sensors of the same or different types are provided (See Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, DE102018115274 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, DE102018115274 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 (See at least paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, DE102018115274 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, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Uno et al. (US 2015/0054294) (hereinafter Uno).
Regarding claim 1, 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 room monitoring sensor (element 94), [which is designed 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 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).
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 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.
Regarding claim 12, Uno discloses wherein the at least one room monitoring sensor is 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]).
Claims 1, 3, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Takahashi (US 2005/0102903).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a device for monitoring a doorway of a vehicle (See paragraphs [0002-0005]), wherein the doorway is closed with a single-leaf or double-leaf door system, comprising at least one room monitoring sensor (element 5), [which is designed to monitor a monitoring area]* (See at least paragraphs [0028-0030]), 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 (element 2), 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).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi discloses wherein the single-leaf door system has a door leaf (See Figure 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. Examiner notes that elements 1-5 of Takahashi are all located in the same area.
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi 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, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Inatama (US 2015/0059247).
Regarding claim 1, Inatama discloses a device for monitoring a doorway of a vehicle (See paragraphs [0005-0007]), wherein the doorway is closed with a single-leaf or double-leaf door system, comprising at least one room monitoring sensor (element 2, “position detector”), [which is designed 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 2) (See Figure 5A, element 2 is identified as “Door control device (including door drive portion) (including position detector)), 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 2, since element 2 is an electrically powered sensor, and requires electrical power to function).
Regarding claim 4, Inatama discloses wherein the double-leaf door system has two door leaves (See Figure 5A), and the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged in the area of a closing edge between the door leaves.
Regarding claim 11, Inatama discloses a vehicle comprising: a doorway which is closed with a single-leaf or double-leaf door system (See Figure 5A), 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, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yamaguchi (US 2016/0082983).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses a device for monitoring a doorway of a vehicle (See at least Abstract), wherein the doorway is closed with a single-leaf or double-leaf door system, comprising at least one room monitoring sensor (Figures 11-12, elements 91 and 92), [which is designed 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 (element 10), 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 elements 91 and 92, since elements 91 and 92 are electrically powered sensors, and requires electrical power to function).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi discloses wherein the single-leaf door system has a door leaf, 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 (See Figures 1 and 11-12).
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi discloses wherein the double-leaf door system has two door leaves (paragraph [0160], “The door opening type of the plug door device 1 may be of a double door type”), and the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged in the area of a closing edge between the door leaves (See Figures 1 and 11-12).
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi discloses wherein the size and orientation of the monitoring area are flexibly adapted.
Regarding claim 8, Yamaguchi discloses wherein a plurality of monitoring sensors of the same or different types are provided (at least elements 91 and 92).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi discloses wherein the at least one monitoring sensor is an optical sensor or an electromagnetic radiation-based sensor (paragraph [0127], “One example of each of the position sensors 91, 92 is an optical sensor”).
Regarding claim 11, Yamaguchi 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, 3-4, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by DE102005011116.
Regarding claim 1, 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 room monitoring sensor (element 5), which is designed 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 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).
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.
Regarding claim 12, DE102005011116 discloses wherein the at least one room monitoring sensor is 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).
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, 3-4, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agam et al. (US 2019/0218847) (hereinafter Agam) in view of Kawase et al. (US 2020/0002990) (hereinafter Kawase).
Regarding claim 1, Agam discloses a device for monitoring a doorway of a vehicle (paragraphs [0003-0005]), wherein the doorway is closed with a single leaf or double-leaf door system (See at least Figure 1), comprising at least one room monitoring sensor (elements 14-14’), [which is designed 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 in the area of a door drive associated with the respective door system.
Although Agam does not give explicit detail with regard to the door drive, Examiner notes that the door system of Agam necessarily includes a door drive for the system to function as an automated door system as intended. Additionally, Agam discloses “The two doors 12 are movable from a fully opened position illustrated in FIG. 1A to a fully closed positioned where facing lateral sides 16 of the doors abut and where the entrance 19 is closed. The automatic opening of the sliding doors 12 is controlled by any well-known technique. Since the operation of sliding doors is believed to be well-known in the art, and for concision purposes, it will not be described.”, column 3. Lines 61-67 and column 4, lines 1-2). Further, Kawase teaches that it is known in the art to configure 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 (See Figure 1), comprising at least one monitoring sensor (elements 2A and 2B), and including a door header assembly as a “door drive” (see Figure 1, considered at least elements 13A, 13B, 14 and surrounding enclosure). 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 header portion of element 14 of Agam, as shown in Figure 15, upon which element 170 is directly arranged, such that it is configured in a manner as taught by Kawase, as a “door drive”, since this would be a logical location for various drive structure of Agam (controller, drive motor, etc.) to be configured for operation, and since the configuration taught by Kawase would be considered “a well-known technique”.
Additionally, Examiner notes that 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 header portion of element 12, as shown in Figure 1, which elements 14 and 14’ are arranged directly on, such that it is a “door drive”, since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and configuring the header as the door drive would have been a predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of results. Examiner further notes that elements 14 and 14’ are considered to be mounted on the door drive, 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 elements 14 and 14’, since elements 14 and 14’ are electrically powered sensors, and require electrical power to function).
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 Agam 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 3, as best understood, Agam discloses wherein the single-leaf door system has a door leaf, and the at least one monitoring sensor is arranged in the area of a closing edge between the door leaf and the doorway (See Figures 1-8). Examiner notes that Agam discloses a first and second door leaf, and therefore the door system of Agam is considered to satisfy the broad terminology “single-leaf door system”.
Regarding claim 4, Agam 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 Figures 1-8).
Regarding claim 7, Agam discloses wherein the size and orientation of the monitoring area are flexibly adapted (see at least paragraphs [0083], [0089-0090], and [0112])
Regarding claim 8, Agam discloses wherein a plurality of monitoring sensors of the same or different types are provided (see at least paragraphs [0089-0090], “a dual mode system can be provided, wherein one or more ultrasound sensors are included in addition to the TOF camera(s) 14-14′”).
Regarding claim 9, Agam discloses wherein the at least one monitoring sensor is an optical sensor or an electromagnetic radiation-based sensor (see at least paragraphs [0089-0090]).
Regarding claim 10, Agam discloses wherein the optical sensor is a camera, 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 (see at least paragraphs [0089-0090]).
Regarding claim 11, Agam discloses a Vehicle (See Abstract, “The proposed system can be used for example in powered pedestrian doors, bus, rail, etc.”, see paragraphs [0003-0005], “Systems and methods are known in the art to detect the presence of a person or object at the entrance of an automatic door such as an elevator door”, “Safety acoustic sensors are used for powered pedestrian doors, bus and train (transit) door safety”), 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. See rejection for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Agam as modified by Kawase for claim 1 above teaches wherein the at least one room monitoring sensor is mounted in or attached to a housing of the door drive (Examiner notes that elements 14-14’ are “mounted in or attached to a housing of the door drive”).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agam et al. (US 8,510,990) in view of Kawase et al. (US 2020/0002990) (hereinafter Kawase) and further in view of Kiehl (US 2016/0176346).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Agam 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 monitoring cameras of Agam such that they are retractable cameras, as taught by Kiehl, as this would ensure that the cameras are concealed when not in use, which would help to protect the camera 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
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102018115274 in view of Kiehl (US 2016/0176346).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, DE102018115274 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 monitoring cameras of DE102018115274 such that they are retractable cameras, as taught by Kiehl, as this would ensure that the cameras are concealed when not in use, which would help to protect the camera 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
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 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “the electrical supply sources are provided in the area of the door drive are directly connected to the at least one room monitoring sensor. Applicant respectfully asserts that these claim limitations are neither taught nor disclosed by the art of record”. Examiner disagrees, and notes that an “electrical supply source” is an extremely broad term which can refer to anything supplying electricity. Examiner further notes that Applicant uses the term “electrical supply sources” is recited only a singular time in Applicants specification as originally filed (page 3, “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”). Applicant does not provide any detail or any manner of definition for a narrower interpretation of the term “electrical supply sources”. Therefore, the term ““electrical supply sources” is considered to be extremely broad.
Regarding the argument “in the art of record, sensors are powered by general vehicle supply or by wiring in the door area, not specifically by leveraging the supply at the drive”. This argument is unclear, since no claim language directed to “leveraging the supply at the drive” can be found. Additionally, as best understood, the disclosure as originally filed makes no mention of “leveraging the supply at the drive”.
Regarding the argument “Turning to ‘274 … As seen in Fig. 1, the motors (door drives) of the two door leaves are 145. They are obviously designed as traveling motors, so the sensors 125 are not arranged on the door drives as claimed in amended claim 1, but on the door portal (on the vehicle wall). Applicant respectfully disagrees that door drive is very broad given Applicant's amended claim 1 limitations. As such, '274 does not anticipate Applicant's claimed invention”.
Examiner disagrees and notes that the term “the door drive” is considered to be very broad. In this case, the term “door drive” is considered to be the drive system of the door, including at least elements 110, 145, and the interconnecting structure (i.e. generally the header portion of the door, on which elements 110, 125, and 145 are positioned as shown in Figure 1). Examiner further notes that the term “door drive” is in no way limited to only the motor. Applicants own “door drive” is identified as element 7 which appears to be numerous unlabeled drive components, and not simply “a motor”. Examiner further disagrees with Applicant’s argument “the motors (door drives) 145 of the two door leaves are obviously designed as traveling motors”, as ‘274 never discloses “traveling motors”.
Regarding the argument “Turning to Uno, the document states that the sensor is arranged within the area of the drive unit, not directly on the drive unit. Furthermore, sensor 94 is a rotation amount sensor for monitoring the motor. Applicant respectfully disagrees that door drive is very broad given Applicant's amended claim 1 limitations. As such, the allegedly corresponding sensor is not a senor configured to monitor a monitoring area enclosing the doorway, as required by Applicant's amended claim 1”. Examiner disagrees and notes that paragraph [0093] of Uno recites, “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”. Examiner notes that a rotary encoder that has a function of detecting “the rotation amount of the output shaft 90a of the electric motor 90” is necessarily “arranged directly on the door drive” in order to function as intended. Examiner additionally notes that “a door drive” as required in claim 1 is considered to be an extremely broad term.
Regarding the argument “Applicant respectfully asserts that amended claim 1 is neither taught nor disclosed by Takahashi. In the Action, the Office alleges that position detector 5 corresponds with Applicant' s claimed sensor and further alleges that the door drive is very broad. Applicant respectfully disagrees, particularly given Applicant's amended claim 1 limitations. Applicant respectfully asserts that there is no indication that the position detector 5 is arranged directly on the door drive, and electrical supply sources provided in the area of the door drive are also directly connected to the at least one monitoring sensor”. Examiner disagrees and notes that Figure 1 of Takahashi explicitly illustrates element 5 (position detector) “on” element 2 (linear motor). Additionally, “electrical supply sources” are necessarily “directly connected” to element 5, since element 5 is an electrically powered sensor, and requires electrical power to function.
Regarding the argument “Applicant respectfully asserts that amended claim 1 is neither taught nor disclosed by Inatama. Applicant respectfully disagrees that the position detector 5 corresponds with Applicant's claimed sensor, particularly considering the above-cited amended claim limitations, i.e., there is no indication that the detection sensor 5 is a room monitoring sensor arranged directly on the door drive and the sensor is a specific sensor configured to monitor the monitoring area”. Examiner disagrees (See rejection for claim 1 above) and additionally notes that the term “room monitoring sensor” is new matter (See above for claim objection regarding new matter).
Regarding the argument “Applicant respectfully asserts that amended claim 1 is neither taught nor disclosed by Yamaguchi. The Office relies on components 91, 92 to allegedly correspond with Applicant's claimed sensor. Applicant respectfully disagrees and directs the Examiner's attention to Applicant's claim amendments. The components 91, 92 represented in Figures 11 and 12 of Yamaguchi are not disposed in the similar orientation as Applicant's claimed sensor”. Examiner disagrees and notes that Applicants argument is unclear, since the “orientation” Applicant is referencing is not claimed, and it is unclear what exactly Applicant is referring to.
Regarding the argument “Turning to '116, the document states that the device 5 includes a sensor with a 3-D camera Sb that is attached to an LED arrangement Sd, which transmits radiation pulses for illuminating the monitored area. There is no indication that the sensor is arranged directly on the door drive, and electrical supply sources provided in the area of the door drive are also directly connected to the at least one room monitoring sensor” Examiner disagrees. Element 5 is explicitly shown as being directly mounted on element 3. See Figure 1. See rejection of claim 1 to DE102005011116 above.
Regarding the argument “Kawase is directed to a pinch detection device, for detecting the occurrence of pinch during closing of one pair of sliding doors. There is no teaching or suggestion of a comparable monitoring sensor and certainly not a room monitoring sensor that is arranged directly on the door drive and electrical supply sources provided in the area of the door drive are also directly connected to the at least one room monitoring sensor”. Examiner disagrees (See rejection for claim 1 above) and additionally notes that the term “room monitoring sensor” is new matter (See above for claim objection regarding new matter).
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 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