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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “A” on line 7 of paragraph 21 and “134” on line 8 of paragraph 33. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear what the vertical line adjacent the “FULLY OPEN” in figure 4 is intended to represent. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
PNG
media_image1.png
1264
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the applicant has improperly used different language to refer to the same element of the invention. For example, the applicant has referred to element 32 as “the operator housing” on line 2 of paragraph 20 and as “the body” on line 3 of paragraph 20..
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “an angle of the door” on lines 4-5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what elements of the invention define the angle of the door. What element of the invention is used to determine the angle of the door?
Claim 1 is objected to because “operating the motor” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the step of operating the motor set forth on line 3 above or is attempting to set forth another step in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 1 is objected to because “determining a speed of the door exceeds a threshold speed” on lines 6-7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Is the applicant attempting to recite a step of determining if a speed of the door has exceeded a threshold speed? Also see “determining . . . the angle of the door exceeds a threshold angle” on lines 6-8 of claim 1.
Claim 1 is objected to because “the determining” on line 9 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear whether or not the applicant is referring to the step of determining set forth above.
Claim 1 is objected to because “during opening of the door” on line 10 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is grammatically awkward and confusing since it is missing the customary article “a” or “the” before “opening”.
Claim 2 is objected to because “the predefined power assist mode drives the motor” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how a mode can drive the motor. It appears that the controller rather than the mode would drive the motor.
Claim 2 is objected to because “open position” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the fully open position set forth above or is attempting to set forth another open position in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 3 is objected to because “the predefined power assist mode drives the door” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how a mode can drive the door. It appears that the controller rather than the mode would drive the door.
Claim 4 is objected to because “during operating the motor” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear whether or not the applicant is referring to the step of operating the motor set forth above.
Claim 4 is objected to because “determining the angle of the door exceeds the threshold angle” on lines 1-2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the step of determining the angle of the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another step in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 4 is objected to because “assistance provided by the motor” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the assistance from the motor set forth above or is attempting to set forth another assistance of the motor in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 4 is objected to because “the assistance provided in the predefined power assist mode” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is objected to because “during operating the motor” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear whether or not the applicant is referring to the step of operating the motor set forth above.
Claim 5 is objected to because “determining the speed of the door exceeds the threshold speed” on lines 1-2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the step of determining the speed of the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another step in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 5 is objected to because “the assistance provided in the predefined power assist mode” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is objected to because “the power” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is objected to because “during operating the motor” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear whether or not the applicant is referring to the step of operating the motor set forth above.
Claim 8 is objected to because “determining the speed of the door exceeds the threshold speed” on lines 1-2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the step of determining the speed of the door set forth above or is attempting to set forth another step in addition to the one set forth above.
Claim 8 is objected to because “the assistance provided in the predefined power assist mode” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is objected to because “the threshold” on line 4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Is the applicant referring to the threshold speed?
Claim 10 is objected to because “terminating operating the motor” on line 1 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear whether or not the applicant is referring to the step of operating the motor set forth above.
Claim 11 is objected to because “an angle of the door” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what elements of the invention define the angle of the door. What element of the invention is used to determine the angle of the door?
Claim 11 is objected to because “the open position” on line 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear whether or not the applicant is referring to the fully open position set forth above.
Claim 11 is objected to because “assistance” on line 12 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what “assistance” the applicant is referring to. What element of the invention provides the assistance to which the applicant is referring?
Claim 12 is objected to because “the open position” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear whether or not the applicant is referring to the fully open position set forth above.
Claim 14 is objected to because “assist to open the door” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Is the applicant referring to “assisting in opening the door”?
Claim 16 is objected to because “relative to the assistance relative to the assistance” on line 2 is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 20 is objected to because “user” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the user set forth above or is attempting to set forth another user in addition to the one above.
Claim 20 is objected to because “pushing” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what element of the invention the user has stopped pushing.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hass (US 2006/0244271).
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 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 increases from the closed position toward the fully open position;
during operating the motor 30, determining:
a speed of the door exceeds a threshold speed as set forth on lines 4-8 of
paragraph 59; or
the angle of the door exceeds a threshold angle; and
in response to the determining, adjusting the motor 30 from the predefined power assist mode to reduce assistance from the motor to the door during opening the door (note that the motor is used as a generator when the speed of the door exceeds a predetermined speed which reduces the amount of assistance from the motor as set forth in paragraph 59).
With respect to claim 10, Hass further discloses terminating operating the motor 30 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.
Claims 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hass (US 2006/0244271).
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 increases from a closed position toward a fully open position;
a motor 30 operable to drive the door operator to move the door from the closed position to the open position; 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 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 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 the door relative to assistance provided in the predefined power assist mode during opening 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.
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 a user is not in contact with the door, a decrease in door speed indicating a user has stopped pushing, and/or the door comes to a stop.
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 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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass 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 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 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 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 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 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass 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 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 Herrmann 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. Note that the motor is used as a generator when the speed of the door exceeds a predetermined speed which reduces the amount of assistance from the motor as set forth in paragraph 59 of Hass.
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 which state that the door is held in a stationary position when the maximum opening angle has been reached.
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 Herrmann 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. Note that the motor is used as a generator when the speed of the door exceeds a predetermined speed which reduces the amount of assistance from the motor as set forth in paragraph 59 of Hass.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass as applied to claims 11-13 and 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 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 as applied to claims 11-13 and 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 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 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass as applied to claims 11-13 and 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 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 which state that the door is held in a stationary position when the maximum opening angle has been reached.
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).
With respect to claim 18, Hass, as modified above, discloses that the controller 31 is configured to progressively (from the teachings of Herrmann 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. Note that the motor is used as a generator when the speed of the door exceeds a predetermined speed which reduces the amount of assistance from the motor as set forth in paragraph 59 of Hass.
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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
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