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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed March 2, 2026.
Drawings
The drawing correction filed March 2, 2026 has been approved.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because recitations such as “in manually opening the door” on line 3 of claim 2 bring the clarity of the claims into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What or who is manually opening the door?
The claims are objected to because “including” on line 2 of claim 3 should be changed to --includes-- to avoid confusion.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Recitations such as “an assistance from the motor to open the door relative to the predetermined amount of assistance” on lines 14-15 of claim 11 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. How does the predetermined amount of assistance differ from the assistance? Both are being provided by the motor. Is the applicant attempting to recite that predetermined amount of assistance is being reduced? Also see lines 2-3 of claims 16 and 18.
Recitations such as “a threshold angle” on line 17 of claim 11 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the predetermined angle set forth above or is attempting to set forth another predetermined angle in addition to the one set forth above.
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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass (US 2006/0244271) in view of Langenberg et al. (US 2018/0334841).
With respect to claim 1, Hass discloses a method for opening a door (not numbered, but shown in figure 10A and set forth on line 3 of paragraph 30) coupled to a door operator assembly 10 having a motor 30, the method comprising:
operating the motor 30 in a predefined power assist mode (see lines 1-4 of paragraph 76) to provide a predetermined amount of assistance (see lines 5-9 of paragraph 76) to open the door from a closed position toward a fully open position, wherein the door pivots during opening so that an angle of the door relative to the closed position of the door increases from the closed position toward the fully open position;
during the operating the motor 30 to open the door, determining:
if a speed of the door exceeds a threshold speed as set forth on lines 4-8
of paragraph 59; or
if the angle of the door exceeds a threshold angle; and
in response to the determining the speed of the door exceeds the threshold speed or the determining the angle of the door exceeds the threshold angle, adjusting the motor 30 from the predefined power assist mode.
Hass is silent concerning dynamically adjusting the motor so that the motor progressively reduces assistance during opening the door relative to the predetermined amount of assistance provided in the power assist mode.
However, Langenberg et al. discloses a door controller 1740 which dynamically adjusts a motor 106 from a predefined power assist mode so that the motor progressively reduces assistance during closing the door. See paragraph 88.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the motor opening control algorithm of Hass with the dynamic motor control algorithm, as taught by Lagenberg et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the user experience while engaging the door. Note that the above combination simply applies the closing dynamic adjustment algorithm of the motor of Lagenberg et al. to the opening control algorithm of the motor of Hass when opening the door of Hass. Accordingly, in response to determining that the speed of the door of Hass exceeds the threshold speed, the motor 30 of Hass would be dynamically adjusted from the predefined power assist mode so that the motor progressively reduces assistance during opening the door relative to the predetermined amount of assistance provided in the power assist mode to open the door. The progressively reduced assistance would be applied to the motor of Hass to progressively increase the resistance provided by the motor when the motor is being used as a generator.
With respect to claim 8, Hass, as modified above, discloses that during operating the motor 30, determining the speed of the door exceeds the threshold speed (line 6 of paragraph 59) and then progressively (from the teachings of Langenberg et al.) reducing the assistance provided by the motor 30 relative to the assistance provided in the predefined power assist mode as the speed of the door increases above the threshold speed.
With respect to claim 9, Hass, as modified above, discloses braking the door with the motor since the motor is being used as a generator as set forth on lines 6-8 of paragraph 59 which inherently brakes the movement of the door. The second threshold speed would occur when the speed of the door increases beyond the initial speed where motor is first used as a generator.
With respect to claim 10, Hass further discloses terminating the operating the motor 30 to open the door in the predefined power assist mode in response to a user not contacting the door as set forth in paragraph 77. Note that when there is no pressure applied to the door power is no longer supplied to the motor 30.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass in view of Langenberg et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Stenzel et al. (US 2009/0223313). Stenzel et al. discloses using a motor 2 to produce a constant torque (see lines 6-7 of paragraph 37) to drive a closure 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to operate the motor of Hass, as modified above, to produce a constant torque, as taught by Stenzel et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the complexity of the control algorithms for controlling the operation of the motor.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass in view of Langenberg et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Battlogg (US 2020/0087965). Battlogg discloses a predefined power assist mode which including driving a door 154 (fig. 1) with the motor 29 (fig. 6) at a torque (see line 2 of paragraph 141) that varies depending on the angle of the door (see line 4 of paragraph 141) so that a force applied by a user (lines 6-7 of paragraph 141) to open the door from the closed position towards the fully open position is constant (see “similar actuating forces” on line 6 of paragraph 141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Hass, as modified above, with a power assist mode, as taught by Battlogg, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the user with a constant and consistent force needed to open the door regardless of the external factors affecting the operation of the door.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass in view of Langenberg et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Herrmann et al. (US 2010/0156139).
With respect to claim 4, Herrmann et al. discloses operating a motor 2 (paragraph 35, lines 3-4), determining an angle of a door 10 exceeds the threshold angle (see line 2 of paragraph 52) and then progressively reducing assistance (lines 3-5 of paragraph 52) provided by the motor 2 relative to the assistance provided in the predefined power assist mode as the angle of the door increases from the threshold angle toward the fully open position. See paragraph 52.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Hass, as modified above, with a motor control algorithm, as taught by Herrmann et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent the door from being opened beyond an end stop of the door.
With respect to claim 5, Hass, as modified above, discloses that during operating the motor 30, determining the speed of the door exceeds the threshold speed (line 6 of paragraph 59) and then progressively (from the teachings of Langenberg et al.) reducing the assistance provided by the motor 30 relative to the assistance provided in the predefined power assist mode as the speed of the door increases above the threshold speed.
With respect to claim 6, Hass, as modified above, discloses closed and fully opened positions and a threshold angle, but is silent concerning the angles of the door in the closed and opened positions and the value of the threshold angle.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the door of Hass, as modified above, with an angle of 0 degrees in the closed position and 90 degrees in the fully open position and a threshold angle of 70 degrees to provide fully closed and fully opened positions (for 0 degrees and 90 degrees) while providing sufficient time for the door to slow to the fully opened position (for 70 degrees).
With respect to claim 7, Hass, as modified above, discloses that the power provided by the motor is reduced to zero before the angle of the door is 90 degrees. See paragraphs 53 and 54 of Herrmann et al. which state that the door is held in a stationary position when the maximum opening angle has been reached which is shown in figure 1 of Herrmann et al. as being less than 90 degrees.
Claims 11-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass (US 2006/0244271) in view of Langenberg et al. (US 2018/0334841).
With respect to claim 11, Hass discloses a system for opening a door (not numbered, but shown in figure 10A and set forth on line 3 of paragraph 30) mounted to a frame (not numbered, but shown in figure 10A and set forth on line 3 of paragraph 55), the system comprising:
a door operator 10 connectable between the door and the frame, wherein the door pivots during opening so that an angle of the door relative to a closed position of the door increases from the closed position toward a fully open position;
a motor 30 operable to drive the door operator 10 to move the door from the closed position toward the fully open position (see lines 1-4 of paragraph 76); and
a controller 31 connected to the motor 30, wherein the controller 31 is configured to:
operate the motor 30 in a predefined power assist mode (see lines 1-4 of paragraph 76) to provide a predetermined amount of assistance to open the door from the closed position toward the fully open position;
determine that a speed of the door exceeds a threshold speed (see lines 4-8 of paragraph 59) and/or the angle of the door exceeds a threshold angle; and
reduce an assistance (see lines 6-8 of paragraph 59 which requires the removal of energy from the door by the motor which requires the reduction of assistance from the motor) from the motor 30 to open the door relative to the predetermined amount of assistance provided by the motor in the predefined power assist mode to open the door in response to the speed of the door exceeding the threshold speed and/or the angle of the door exceeding a threshold angle.
Hass is silent concerning progressively reducing the assistance from the motor to open the door.
However, Langenberg et al. discloses a door controller 1740 which progressively adjusts a motor 106 from a predefined power assist mode so that the motor progressively reduces assistance during closing the door. See paragraph 88.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the motor opening control algorithm of Hass with the dynamic motor control algorithm, as taught by Lagenberg et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the user experience while engaging the door. Note that the above combination simply applies the progressive closing adjustment algorithm of the motor of Lagenberg et al. to the opening control algorithm of the motor of Hass when opening the door of Hass. Accordingly, in response to determining that the speed of the door of Hass exceeds the threshold speed, the motor 30 of Hass would be progressively adjusted from the predefined power assist mode so that the motor progressively reduces assistance during opening the door relative to the predetermined amount of assistance provided in the power assist mode to open the door. The progressively reduced assistance would be applied to the motor of Hass to progressively increase the resistance provided by the motor when the motor is being used as a generator.
With respect to claim 12, Hass discloses that the door operator 10 includes a biasing member 33 (fig. 5) configured to increasingly resist movement of the door toward the fully open position.
With respect to claim 13, Hass discloses that the door operator 10 includes: an arm assembly 14, 16 (fig. 3) connectable to at least one of the door and the frame; and a drive mechanism 34 (fig. 6) that connects the motor to the arm assembly.
With respect to claim 18, Hass, as modified above, discloses that the controller 31 is configured to progressively (from the teachings of Lagenberg et al.) reduce the assistance provided by the motor 30 relative to the assistance provided in the power assist mode as the speed of the door increases above the threshold speed.
With respect to claim 19, Hass, as modified above, discloses that the controller 31 is configured to brake the door with the motor 30 in response to a speed of the door exceeding a second threshold speed since the motor is being used as a generator as set forth on lines 6-8 of paragraph 59 which inherently brakes the movement of the door. The second threshold speed would occur when the speed of the door increases beyond the initial speed where motor is first used as a generator.
With respect to claim 20, Hass further discloses that the controller 31 is configured to terminate operating the motor 30 in the predefined power assist mode in response to a touch sensor (not shown, but comprising the switch set forth on lines 8-11 of paragraph 77) indicating the user is not in contact with the door, a decrease in door speed indicating a user has stopped pushing the door, and/or the door comes to a stop.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass in view of Langenberg et al. as applied to claims 11-13 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Stenzel et al. (US 2009/0223313). Hass discloses a predefined power assist mode, as set forth in paragraph 76, wherein the controller 31 is configured to drive the motor 30 to assist to open the door from the closed position towards the fully open position.
Hass is silent concerning driving the motor 30 at a fixed torque.
However, Stenzel et al. discloses driving a motor 2 at a fixed torque (see lines 6-7 of paragraph 37) to drive a closure 7 from a closed position towards a fully open position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to operate the motor of Hass, as modified above, to produce a constant torque, as taught by Stenzel et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the complexity of the control algorithms for controlling the operation of the motor.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass in view of Langenberg et al. as applied to claims 11-13 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Battlogg (US 2020/0087965).
Hass discloses that in the predefined power assist mode the controller 31 is configured to drive the door with the motor 30 as set forth in paragraph 76.
Hass is silent concerning driving the motor at a torque that varies depending on the angle of the door so that a force applied by a user to open the door from the closed position to the fully open position is constant.
However, Battlogg discloses a predefined power assist mode which drives a door 154 (fig. 1) with the motor 29 (fig. 6) at a torque (see line 2 of paragraph 141) that varies depending on the angle of the door (see line 4 of paragraph 141) so that a force applied by a user (lines 6-7 of paragraph 141) to open the door from the closed position towards the fully open position is constant (see “similar actuating forces” on line 6 of paragraph 141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Hass, as modified above, with a power assist mode, as taught by Battlogg, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the user with a constant and consistent force needed to open the door regardless of the external factors affecting the operation of the door.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass in view of Langenberg et al. as applied to claims 11-13 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Herrmann et al. (US 2010/0156139).
With respect to claim 16, Hass discloses that the controller 31 is configured to reduce the assistance provided by the motor 30 relative to the assistance relative to the assistance provided in the predefined power assist mode.
Hass is silent concerning progressively reducing the assistance provided by the motor relative to the assistance provided in the predefined power assist mode as the angle of the door increases from the threshold angle toward the fully open position.
However, Herrmann et al. discloses operating a motor 2 (paragraph 35, lines 3-4), determining when an angle of a door 10 exceeds a threshold angle (see line 2 of paragraph 52) and then progressively reducing assistance (lines 3-5 of paragraph 52) provided by the motor 2 relative to the assistance provided in the predefined power assist mode as the angle of the door increases from the threshold angle toward the fully open position. See paragraph 52.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Hass, as modified above, with a motor control algorithm, as taught by Herrmann et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent the door from being opened beyond an end stop of the door.
With respect to claim 17, Hass, as modified above, discloses closed and fully opened positions and a threshold angle. Hass, as modified above, further discloses that the power provided by the motor is reduced to zero before the angle of the door is 90 degrees. See paragraphs 53 and 54 of Herrmann et al. which state that the door is held in a stationary position when the maximum opening angle has been reached which is less than 90 degrees as shown in figure 1 of Herrmann et al.
Hass, as modified above, is silent concerning the angles of the door in the closed and opened positions and the value of the threshold angle.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill to provide the door of Hass, as modified above, with an angle of 0 degrees in the closed position and 90 degrees in the fully open position and a threshold angle of 70 degrees to provide fully closed and fully opened positions (for 0 degrees and 90 degrees) while providing sufficient time for the door to slow to the fully opened position (for 70 degrees).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
