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.
Preliminary Amendment
The amendments to Claims 1-14 in the submission filed 1/12/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
New Claims 15-16 is acknowledged and accepted.
The amendments to the Abstract and Specification are acknowledged and accepted.
Pending Claims are 1-16.
Drawings
The drawings with 9 Sheets of Figs. 1-6 received on 1/12/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Abstract has more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10, 13-16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-10,15 recite “A sensor” in line 1. There is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is suggested to be replaced with –The sensor--.
Claims 13-14,16 recite “An automatic door” in line 1. There is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is suggested to be replaced with –The automatic door--.
Claim 3 recites “the 00 facet” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is suggested to be replaced with –a 00 facet--.
Claim 4 recites “the connection line” in line 5-6 and “the angular position” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is suggested to be replaced with –a connection line—and –an angular position--.
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.
Claim 3,5,8,13,16, 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 “wherein the facets” in line 2. It is not clear whether the facets are the emitting mirror facets or the receiving mirror facets. From the specification, it appears that the facets refer to the emitting mirror facets. For the purposes of examination, the facets are interpreted to be the emitting mirror facets.
Claim 5 recites “the curved shape is essentially circular”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. From the specification, it appears that the curved shape is of the curved window. For the purposes of examination, a curved shape of the curved window is interpreted to be circular.
Claim 8 recites “the width of at least one facet is significantly larger than that of the other facets”. It is not clear whether the one facet and the other facet is an emitting mirror facet or a receiving mirror facet. From the specification (page 7) it appears that the larger facet is an emitting facet and the other facet appears to be other emitting or receiving mirror facets. For the purposes of examination, the other facets are taken to be the receiver facets.
Claims 13,16 recite “at least three curtains”. It is not clear whether the curtains are a physical structure or a scanning field. From the specification (page 12), it appears that the curtains are scanning fields. For the purposes of examination, the curtains are interpreted to be scanning fields.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6,8-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lages et al (WO 2015/014556 A2, of record) in view of Zambon et al (US 2006/0169876 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lages teaches (fig 1-5) a sensor (laser scanner 1 is part of a lidar system, para 85),
where the sensor based on a pulse-echo evaluation (“The time between emitting a laser pulse and receiving the echo is proportional to the distance to the object”, para 89), comprising
a rotating mirror (mirror unit 10, para 86), where the rotational axis (rotation axis 12, para 87) lies normal to a reference plane (reference plane of fig 1); and
at least one light-pulse generation unit (“optical transmitter 3, 3' for emitting electromagnetic rays 4, namely laser pulses”, para 68) generating pulses having a certain beam width,
where the pulses are sent along two different emitting optical paths (“two transmitting and receiving units 2, 2', each of which has an optical transmitter 3, 3' for emitting electromagnetic rays 4”, para 85, as in fig 1)
the emitting optical paths (as in fig 1) are embodied in a way that the emitted pulses can be reflected by the mirror (mirror unit 10, para 86) (“directs the emitted rays 4 and the reflected rays 6 to and from”, para 87),
the emitting optical path defines an incident pulse direction of the emitted pulses, and the reflected pulses establish a scanning field (“Movement of the mirror carrier 11 covers an entire field of vision 14, 15, 16, 17 (Fig 5, Fig 6) is scanned and monitored”, para 90),
where each of the reflected pulse directions (reflected rays 6, para 92) defines a reflected beam projection by its projection on the reference plane (as in fig 1)
the emitting optical paths are arranged so that the angle between the projections of the incident beams, which is the projection of the incident pulse directions onto the reference plane, is between 30° and 160° (“the angle α is approximately 120°”, para 96),
the rotational axis (rotation axis 12, para 87) lies on the bisectrix of the beam projections between an intersection plane and the optical component (each comprises a transmitting lens, para 86) that lies closest to the rotating mirror (mirror unit 10, para 86) seen along the optical path (as in fig 1),
the rotating mirror (mirror unit 10, para 86) and the rotational axis (rotation axis 12, para 87) of the mirror are set in a way that the reflected beam projections (reflected rays 6, para 92) from each of both incident optical paths (“two transmitting and receiving units 2, 2', each of which has an optical transmitter 3, 3' for emitting electromagnetic rays 4”, para 85, as in fig 1) have an innermost reflected pulse that is at least parallel to the bisectrix or even crosses the bisectrix on the side of the scanning field (reflected rays 6 cross the bisectrix as in fig 1), and
the scanning field is delimited by two outermost reflected pulses where the scanning field between the two outermost pulses has an angular range of more than 150° (fig 1, 5, “The semi-cylindrical window 25 thus surrounds the working area of the rotating components of the mirror unit 10 and allows a field of view of approximately 180°. Scanning over the entire opening area of the window 25 is possible by arranging two transmitting and receiving units 2, 2' at an angle α between their optical axes 20, 21”, para 106),
and the reflected pulse can be echoed back by an object in the scanning field (“The travel time between sending and receiving the echo is proportional to the distance to the object”, para 9)
where the echoed pulse is reflected by the receiving mirror (receiving mirror 19, para 92) and is then received by a receiver (receiver 5,5’, para 92) in a way that it is distinguishable over which emitting optical path the emitted pulse of the echoed pulse was initially sent (“Transmitting mirror 18 for deflecting the emitted rays 4 and a receiving mirror 19 assigned to each of the optical receivers 5, 5' for deflecting the reflected rays 6”, para 92).
However, Lages does not teach
where the rotating mirror comprises at least three different emitting mirror facets
light-pulse generation unit generating infrared pulses;
the emitted pulses can be reflected by the mirror facets;
the rotating mirror comprises the same amount of receiving mirror facets as emitting mirror facets
Lages and Zambon are related as sensors with rotating mirrors.
Zambon teaches (fig 1-6) a sensor for automatic doors or automatic gates (light scanner device 10, para 68, “device can suitably be used in a door sensor system for providing presence and/or motion detection of a target object in a surveillance area in or near a door”, para 1), comprising
a rotating mirror (transmitter deflection means 20, para 68) where the rotating mirror comprises at least three different emitting mirror facets (mirror facets 20-1- to 20-4, para 68) and
at least one light-pulse generation unit (pulse source 12, “The pulse source 12 is embodied as an infrared laser diode emitting short laser pulses at a wavelength in the region of infrared light of electromagnetic spectrum”, para 68) generating infrared pulses having a certain beam width;
the emitted pulses can be reflected by the mirror facets (mirror facets 20-1- to 20-4, para 68);
the rotating mirror (transmitter deflection means 20, para 68) comprises the same amount of receiving mirror facets (“the facets 24-1 to 24-4 of the receiver mirror element 24”, para 88) as emitting mirror facets (“four, facets 20-1 to 20-4”, para 88).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror of Lages to include the mirror facets of Zambon for the purpose of common setup for detection of motion near automatic doors (para 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Lages-Zambon teach the sensor for automatic doors according to claim 1.
However, Lages does not teach
wherein the emitting mirror-facets rotating around a rotational axis have at least two facets that are differently inclined relative to the reference plane.
Lages and Zambon are related as sensors with rotating mirrors.
Zambon teaches (fig 1-6)
wherein the emitting mirror-facets (mirror facets 20-1 to 20-4, para 68) rotating around a rotational axis (rotation axis 36) have at least two facets that are differently inclined relative to the reference plane (20-1 and 20-2 are inclined at a different angle as in fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror of Lages to include the differently inclined mirror facets of Zambon for the purpose of common setup for detection of motion near automatic doors (para 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Lages-Zambon teach the sensor for automatic doors according to claim 1.
However, Lages does not teach
wherein the facets except a 0deg facet, have a pivotal line, around which the facets are tilted and where the pivotal lines are at the same height of the facet.
Lages and Zambon are related as sensors with rotating mirrors.
Zambon teaches (fig 1-6)
wherein the emitting mirror facets (mirror facets 20-1 to 20-4, para 68) except a 00 facet, have a pivotal line, around which the facets are tilted (pivotal being along the rotation axis and the emitting mirror facets 20-1 to 20-4 are inclined with respect to this pivotal line) and where the pivotal lines are at the same height of the facet (facets 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror of Lages to include the inclined mirror facets and a pivotal line of Zambon for the purpose of common setup for detection of motion near automatic doors (para 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Lages-Zambon teach the sensor according to claim 1,
wherein the sensor comprises a housing (housing 24, para 104, Lages) that comprises a curved window (curved window 25, para 104) which is transparent for the emitting pulse, where the curved window stretches from a start angular position to an end angular position (as in fig 1) where the rotational axis (rotation axis 12, para 87) lies between the connection line of the start position and end angular position and the curved window (curved window 25, para 104) at the angular position in the middle of the start angular position and the end angular position
Regarding Claim 5, Lages-Zambon teach the sensor according to claim 4, wherein the curved shape is essentially circular (circular window, para 28).
Regarding Claim 6, Lages-Zambon teach the sensor according to claim 1,
wherein the sensor (laser scanner 1 is part of a lidar system, para 85, Lages) is embodied in a way that a first emitting optical path (emitting path from transmitter 2, fig 1) and the receiving optical path (receiving path of reflected rays 6, fig 1) are one atop the other, and
However, Lages does not teach
the sensor comprises an optical feedback component that can guide a beam from the emitting optical path to the receiving optical path at a certain angular position of the mirror.
Lages and Zambon are related as sensors with rotating mirrors.
Zambon teaches (fig 1-6)
the sensor comprises an optical feedback component (reflector means 30, para 96, retro-reflector, internal optical feedback, para 30) that can guide a beam from the emitting optical path to the receiving optical path (“a so-called light pipe, that is adapted to reverse the travel direction of transmitted pulses and re-direct them toward the photodetector means”, para 96) at a certain angular position of the mirror (“The retro-reflector 30 is positioned such that a portion of the transmitted beam reaches the retro-reflector 30 only for certain orientations of the rotating transmitter mirror means 20, such as the position shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B”, para 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Lages to include the optical feedback component of Zambon for the purpose of common setup for detection of motion near automatic doors (para 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Lages-Zambon teach the sensor according to claim 6,
wherein the width of at least one receiving mirror facet (mirror facet 24-1 to 24-4, para 70) is significantly larger than that of the other facets ((mirror facet 201- to 20-4, para 69).
However, Lages-Zambon do not teach
wherein the width of at least one emitting mirror facet is significantly larger than that of the other facets to allow a reflection of the emitting pulse to reach the optical feedback component
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Zambon teaches that the width of the facets is in a range of values. An increase in the width of the emitting mirror facet will help in directing light to the feedback component while making the device bulky and a decrease in the width would make the redirecting light harder while making the device lighter. Therefore, the width of the emitter mirror facet is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed width of the emitter facets, and one would have chosen the width of at least one emitting mirror facet is significantly larger than that of the other facets according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving sensor quality with sensor size. One would have been motivated to have the width to be within the claimed range balancing a desired sensor quality with sensor size.
Regarding Claim 9, Lages-Zambon teach the sensor according to claim 1.
However, Lages does not teach
wherein the receiving mirror facets and the emitting mirror facets have the same rotational axis (A) and lie one above the other.
Lages and Zambon are related as sensors with rotating mirrors.
Zambon teaches (fig 1-6)
wherein the receiving mirror facets (facets 24-1 to 24-4, para 70) and the emitting mirror facets (mirror facets 20-1 to 20-4, para 68) have the same rotational axis (A) (rotation axis 34) and lie one above the other (as in fig 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror of Lages to include the receiving and emitter mirror facets of Zambon for the purpose of common compact setup for detection of motion near automatic doors (para 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Lages-Zambon teach the sensor according to claim 9,
wherein the mirror (mirror unit 10, para 86, Lages) is a one-piece mirror drum (as in fig 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Lages teaches (fig 1-5) a sensor (laser scanner 1 is part of a lidar system, para 85),
the sensor comprises two light-pulse echo units (“two transmitting and receiving units 2, 2', each of which has an optical transmitter 3, 3' for emitting electromagnetic rays 4”, para 85, as in fig 1) (“The time between emitting a laser pulse and receiving the echo is proportional to the distance to the object”, para 89) and a single rotating mirror (mirror unit 10, para 86),
where the two light-pulse echo units (“two transmitting and receiving units 2, 2', each of which has an optical transmitter 3, 3' for emitting electromagnetic rays 4”, para 85, as in fig 1) each comprise a light-pulse receiving unit (receiving units 2, 2', para 85) and a light-pulse generation unit (optical transmitter 3, 3' for emitting electromagnetic rays 4, namely laser pulses”, para 68) where the light-pulse echo units are arranged symmetrically with regard to an intermediate plane (reference plane of fig 1),
where the axis (A) of rotation (rotation axis 12, para 87) of the rotating mirror lies within the intermediate plane (reference plane of fig 1),
where the light- pulse echo units (“two transmitting and receiving units 2, 2', each of which has an optical transmitter 3, 3' for emitting electromagnetic rays 4”, para 85, as in fig 1) and the mirror (mirror unit 10, para 86) are arranged in a way that the outermost emitted beams of the two light emitting and receiving units define an angle (FA) between the two outermost beams which is larger than 1600 (fig 1, 5, “The semi-cylindrical window 25 thus surrounds the working area of the rotating components of the mirror unit 10 and allows a field of view of approximately 180°. Scanning over the entire opening area of the window 25 is possible by arranging two transmitting and receiving units 2, 2' at an angle α between their optical axes 20, 21”, para 106),
where the innermost beams are at least parallel or overlapping (innermost beams from emitting units 2,2’ are overlapping as in fig 1),
where the sensor comprises an evaluation unit (evaluation unit 13, para 89) that determines the position of an object in the scanning field by taking into account the TOF measurements of both light-pulse echo units (“The electrical received signal 9 is analyzed in an evaluation unit 13. From the detection of echoes or pulses in the received signal 9, conclusions are drawn about target objects in the vicinity”, para 89).
However, Lages does not teach
an automatic door comprising at least one automatically driven leaf to cover a door opening where the automatic door or gate comprises a sensor to determine the presence of an object in vicinity of the door opening a control unit that controls the movement of the at least one leaf depending on the detection status of the sensor; and
rotating mirror comprising at least three reflecting emitting facets
Lages and Zambon are related as sensors with rotating mirrors.
Zambon teaches (fig 1-7A,7B) an automatic door (“device can suitably be used in a door sensor system for providing presence and/or motion detection of a target object in a surveillance area in or near a door”, para 1) comprising at least one automatically driven leaf (swing door element 76, para 110) to cover a door opening (door opening 96, para 106, fig 6) where the automatic door or gate comprises a sensor (light scanner device 10, para 68, door sensor system 90, para 106) to determine the presence of an object in vicinity of the door opening (“to increase safety by enabling detecting objects and persons within the guard distance in the vicinity of the area covered by the trajectory of movement of the swinging door element 76 from being hurt by the moving door element 76”, para 111)
a control unit (“so as to create a guard area projecting beyond the extensions of the door element or elements, thus increasing the safety of persons in the guard area near the door element edge by preventing them from being hurt by the moving door element”, para 113, this indicates a control unit) that controls the movement of the at least one leaf (swing door element 76, para 110) depending on the detection status of the sensor (light scanner device 10, para 68, door sensor system 90, para 106), comprising
a rotating mirror (transmitter deflection means 20, para 68) where the rotating mirror comprises at least three different emitting mirror facets (mirror facets 20-1- to 20-4, para 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Lages to include the three facet mirror of an automatic door of Zambon for the purpose of using in an automatic door for detection of motion near the doors (para 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Lages teaches (fig 1-5) a sensor (laser scanner 1 is part of a lidar system, para 85),
where the sensor based on a pulse-echo evaluation (“The time between emitting a laser pulse and receiving the echo is proportional to the distance to the object”, para 89), comprising
a rotating mirror (mirror unit 10, para 86), where the rotational axis (rotation axis 12, para 87) lies normal to a reference plane (reference plane of fig 1); and
at least one light-pulse generation unit (“optical transmitter 3, 3' for emitting electromagnetic rays 4, namely laser pulses”, para 68) generating pulses having a certain beam width,
where the pulses are sent along two different emitting optical paths (“two transmitting and receiving units 2, 2', each of which has an optical transmitter 3, 3' for emitting electromagnetic rays 4”, para 85, as in fig 1)
the emitting optical paths (as in fig 1) are embodied in a way that the emitted pulses can be reflected by the mirror (mirror unit 10, para 86) (“directs the emitted rays 4 and the reflected rays 6 to and from”, para 87),
the emitting optical path defines an incident pulse direction of the emitted pulses, and the reflected pulses establish a scanning field (“Movement of the mirror carrier 11 covers an entire field of vision 14, 15, 16, 17 (Fig 5, Fig 6) is scanned and monitored”, para 90),
where each of the reflected pulse directions (reflected rays 6, para 92) defines a reflected beam projection by its projection on the reference plane (as in fig 1)
the emitting optical paths are arranged so that the angle between the projections of the incident beams, which is the projection of the incident pulse directions onto the reference plane, is between 30° and 160° (“the angle α is approximately 120°”, para 96),
the rotational axis (rotation axis 12, para 87) lies on the bisectrix of the beam projections between an intersection plane and the optical component (each comprises a transmitting lens, para 86) that lies closest to the rotating mirror (mirror unit 10, para 86) seen along the optical path (as in fig 1),
the rotating mirror (mirror unit 10, para 86) and the rotational axis (rotation axis 12, para 87) of the mirror are set in a way that the reflected beam projections (reflected rays 6, para 92) from each of both incident optical paths (“two transmitting and receiving units 2, 2', each of which has an optical transmitter 3, 3' for emitting electromagnetic rays 4”, para 85, as in fig 1) have an innermost reflected pulse that is at least parallel to the bisectrix or even crosses the bisectrix on the side of the scanning field (reflected rays 6 cross the bisectrix as in fig 1), and
the scanning field is delimited by two outermost reflected pulses where the scanning field between the two outermost pulses has an angular range of more than 150° (fig 1, 5, “The semi-cylindrical window 25 thus surrounds the working area of the rotating components of the mirror unit 10 and allows a field of view of approximately 180°. Scanning over the entire opening area of the window 25 is possible by arranging two transmitting and receiving units 2, 2' at an angle α between their optical axes 20, 21”, para 106),
and the reflected pulse can be echoed back by an object in the scanning field (“The travel time between sending and receiving the echo is proportional to the distance to the object”, para 9)
where the echoed pulse is reflected by the receiving mirror (receiving mirror 19, para 92) and is then received by a receiver (receiver 5,5’, para 92) in a way that it is distinguishable over which emitting optical path the emitted pulse of the echoed pulse was initially sent (“Transmitting mirror 18 for deflecting the emitted rays 4 and a receiving mirror 19 assigned to each of the optical receivers 5, 5' for deflecting the reflected rays 6”, para 92).
However, Lages does not teach
where the rotating mirror comprises at least three different emitting mirror facets
light-pulse generation unit generating infrared pulses;
the emitted pulses can be reflected by the mirror facets;
the rotating mirror comprises the same amount of receiving mirror facets as emitting mirror facets
Lages and Zambon are related as sensors with rotating mirrors.
Zambon teaches (fig 1-6) an automatic door with a sensor (light scanner device 10, para 68, “device can suitably be used in a door sensor system for providing presence and/or motion detection of a target object in a surveillance area in or near a door”, para 1), comprising
a rotating mirror (transmitter deflection means 20, para 68) where the rotating mirror comprises at least three different emitting mirror facets (mirror facets 20-1- to 20-4, para 68) and
at least one light-pulse generation unit (pulse source 12, “The pulse source 12 is embodied as an infrared laser diode emitting short laser pulses at a wavelength in the region of infrared light of electromagnetic spectrum”, para 68) generating infrared pulses having a certain beam width;
the emitted pulses can be reflected by the mirror facets (mirror facets 20-1- to 20-4, para 68);
the rotating mirror (transmitter deflection means 20, para 68) comprises the same amount of receiving mirror facets (“the facets 24-1 to 24-4 of the receiver mirror element 24”, para 88) as emitting mirror facets (“four, facets 20-1 to 20-4”, para 88).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror of Lages to include the mirror facets of Zambon for the purpose of common automatic door setup for detection of motion near the door (para 1).
Regarding claim 13, Lages-Zambon teaches the automatic door according to claim 11.
However, Lages does not teach
wherein the door comprises two automatically driven sliding door leaves, where the sensor is mounted atop the sliding door leaves and provides at least three curtains where at least one curtain extends in an almost vertical direction, which is generally parallel to the door leaves or in an acute angle relative to the door leaves the door leaves each having a main closing edge and a secondary closing edge where the scanning field stretches from the secondary closing edge of the first door leaf to the secondary closing edge of the second door leaf
Lages and Zambon are related as sensors with rotating mirrors.
Zambon teaches (fig 1-6) wherein the door comprises two automatically driven sliding door leaves (“the door sensor system could be mounted on a moving door element, for example a swinging or sliding door element that is adapted to close and open the door opening 96”, para 109, “The door sensor system 90 can further be mounted at a left side mounting position (not shown) on the first door side frame element 72-1”, “symmetrically in the door frame 96 at a right side mounting position (not shown) on the second (right) door side frame element 72-2”, para 107) where the sensor is mounted atop the sliding door leaves (“where the light scanner device is used as a door sensor system 90. It is mounted at a substantially top centre mounting position on a swinging door element 76 and oriented such that the sweep sector respectively the sweep plane is tilted in a substantially downward direction toward the scanned area 59 on a ground.”, para 110) and
provides at least three curtains where at least one curtain extends in an almost vertical direction, which is generally parallel to the door leaves or in an acute angle relative to the door leaves (“When the light scanner device is used as a door sensor system 90 as in the example of FIG. 6, it can conveniently be mounted in at least three different locations 92-1, 92-2, 92-3 of a door frame in corresponding different orientations regarding the tilt angle of the sweep sector”, para 106, the sweep sector is considered the curtain)
the door leaves each having a main closing edge and a secondary closing edge (door elements 721-1, 72-2 have a main edge and a secondary edge) and where the scanning field stretches from the secondary closing edge of the first door leaf to the secondary closing edge of the second door leaf, (scanning width 60 of a scanned area 59, para 110, also fig 4,5 for the scanning field from edge to secondary edge)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lages to include the door leaves of Zambon for the purpose of common automatic door setup for detection of motion near the door (para 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Lages-Zambon teach the automatic door according to claim 13.
However, Lages does not teach
wherein the sensor provides at least three subsequent zones (A, B, C) which are subsequent in width direction, where the sensor has a first secondary closing edge zone (A), a main zone (B), and a second secondary closing edge zone (C),where a detection in the first secondary closing edge zone (A) leads to a first signal to trigger a first action on a door controller, the detection on the main zone (B) leads to a signal to trigger a second action that is different from the first action and a detection in the third zone (C) leads to a signal to trigger a third action that is different to the second action.
Lages and Zambon are related as sensors with rotating mirrors.
Zambon teaches (fig 1-7B)
wherein the sensor provides at least three subsequent zones (A, B, C) (“The minimum detection distances and the maximum detection distances (detection ranges) of the door sensor systems 90-1 to 90-3 are adjusted such that door sensor systems jointly survey a portion of the door opening 96 as indicated by the bold rectangle indicated in FIG. 5”, para 100, fig 5) which are subsequent in width direction, where the sensor has a first secondary closing edge zone (A) (90-1), a main zone (B) (90-2), and a second secondary closing edge zone (C) (90-3),
where a detection in the first secondary closing edge zone (A) leads to a first signal to trigger a first action on a door controller (“so as to create a guard area projecting beyond the extensions of the door element or elements, thus increasing the safety of persons in the guard area near the door element edge by preventing them from being hurt by the moving door element”, para 113, this indicates a door control unit), the detection on the main zone (B) leads to a signal to trigger a second action that is different from the first action and a detection in the third zone (C) leads to a signal to trigger a third action that is different to the second action (the sensors 90-1 to 90-3 on each zone, indicates first to third signals are triggered with detection of any objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lages to include the three sensor zones of Zambon for the purpose of common automatic door setup for accurate detection of motion near the door (para 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Lages-Zambon teach the sensor according to claim 7, wherein the width of at least one receiving mirror facet (mirror facet 24-1 to 24-4, para 70) is significantly larger than that of the other facets ((mirror facet 201- to 20-4, para 69).
However, Lages-Zambon do not teach
wherein the width of at least one emitting mirror facet is significantly larger than that of the other facets to allow a reflection of the emitting pulse to reach the optical feedback component
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Zambon teaches that the width of the facets is in a range of values. An increase in the width of the emitting mirror facet will help in directing light to the feedback component while making the device bulky and a decrease in the width would make the redirecting light harder while making the device lighter. Therefore, the width of the emitter mirror facet is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed width of the emitter facets, and one would have chosen the width of at least one emitting mirror facet is significantly larger than that of the other facets according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving sensor quality with sensor size. One would have been motivated to have the width to be within the claimed range balancing a desired sensor quality with sensor size.
Regarding Claim 16, Lages-Zambon teach the automatic door according to claim 12.
However, Lages does not teach
wherein the door comprises two automatically driven sliding door leaves, where the sensor is mounted atop the sliding door leaves and provides at least three curtains where at least one curtain extends in an almost vertical direction, which is generally parallel to the door leaves or in an acute angle relative to the door leaves the door leaves each having a main closing edge and a secondary closing edge where the scanning field stretches from the secondary closing edge of the first door leaf to the secondary closing edge of the second door leaf
Lages and Zambon are related as sensors with rotating mirrors.
Zambon teaches (fig 1-7B) wherein the door comprises two automatically driven sliding door leaves (“the door sensor system could be mounted on a moving door element, for example a swinging or sliding door element that is adapted to close and open the door opening 96”, para 109, “The door sensor system 90 can further be mounted at a left side mounting position (not shown) on the first door side frame element 72-1”, “symmetrically in the door frame 96 at a right side mounting position (not shown) on the second (right) door side frame element 72-2”, para 107) where the sensor is mounted atop the sliding door leaves (“where the light scanner device is used as a door sensor system 90. It is mounted at a substantially top centre mounting position on a swinging door element 76 and oriented such that the sweep sector respectively the sweep plane is tilted in a substantially downward direction toward the scanned area 59 on a ground.”, para 110) and
provides at least three curtains where at least one curtain extends in an almost vertical direction, which is generally parallel to the door leaves or in an acute angle relative to the door leaves (“When the light scanner device is used as a door sensor system 90 as in the example of FIG. 6, it can conveniently be mounted in at least three different locations 92-1, 92-2, 92-3 of a door frame in corresponding different orientations regarding the tilt angle of the sweep sector”, para 106, the sweep sector is considered the curtain)
the door leaves each having a main closing edge and a secondary closing edge (door elements 721-1, 72-2 have a main edge and a secondary edge) and where the scanning field stretches from the secondary closing edge of the first door leaf to the secondary closing edge of the second door leaf, (scanning width 60 of a scanned area 59, para 110, also fig 4,5 for the scanning field from edge to secondary edge)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lages to include the door leaves of Zambon for the purpose of common automatic door setup for detection of motion near the door (para 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 is allowable for at least the reason:
“wherein the optical feedback component is positioned between the rotating mirror and the curved window.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gassend et al (US 2021/0199779 A1) teaches (fig 2-3A) a sensor with rotating mirror with many facets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2/12/2026