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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 recites the exact same subject matter that is included in the preamble of claim 1, and then refers back to claim 1 to include the subject matter that is included in the error data reporting arrangement. This essentially causes a duplication of the exact subject matter of claim 1, because the claims do not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a computer program product(claim 16), and a computer readable medium(claim 17). A review of the specification teaches that the product and medium do not exclude transitory forms of these elements. Therefore, it is possible that the product and medium could include non-statutory examples, which doe not fall within at least one of the four categories. For examples, a signal per se, could readily constitute the product and medium, and therefore, would not be eligible subject matter.
ART REJECTION:
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braverman et al(USPGPUB 2013/0127590 A1). -- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Braverman et al(Braverman) includes:
1) an entrance system (10) having one or more movable door members (DM1...DMn) is met by the automatic door system(10), including door(12), as seen in figure 1;
2) an automatic door operator (30) for causing movement of the one or more movable door members (DM1...DMn) between closed and open positions is met by the door driver mechanism(20), which controls movement of door panels(12-1,12-2), between open and closed positions(see: Braverman, sec[0027]);
3) a controller (22) is met by the processor unit(44));
4) a memory (24) is met by the memory of memory device(48)(see: Braverman, sec[0031]);
5) a communication interface (26) is met by the communications link(30)(see: Braverman, sec[0029]),
6) wherein the controller (22) is configured for repeatedly collecting event data in the entrance system (10);maintaining a set of recent event data in the memory (24); detecting an error condition in the entrance system (10); upon detecting the error condition: generating an error report (27) which comprises information representing the error condition together with information representing the maintained set of recent event data; and causing transmission (28) of the error report (27) via the communication interface (26) to a remote data receiver (29) is met by the processor unit(44), which executes program instructions to detect collect data pertaining to operation schedules(see: Braverman, sec[0040]), and polls door controller(18) in real time for the occurrence of door errors(see: secs[0047-0049]), and wherein an event log is provided, which stores a record of errors and warnings that exist in the door system(10), and transmits the event log to a user input requesting retrieval information from the event log stored in memory device(48)(see: Braverman, sec[0050]).
Although the claimed discarding older event data is not specifically taught by Braverman, Braverman does teach that an erase option is included on the control keys for the user input(see: Braverman, sec[0070]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to allow discarding of older event data, while maintaining recent data in memory, since this would have helped ensure that the most up to data date is included, while not overloading memory space in the system
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) the automatic door operator (30) comprises a main controller (32) and a data bus (37) for interconnecting the main controller (32) with other components, parts or sub-systems of the automatic door operator (30), wherein the error data reporting arrangement (20) is implemented by a software routine executed by the main controller (32) is met door controller(18), driver mechanism(20), and link(30), as discussed in claim 1 above, and wherein the processor unit(44) executing program instructions stored in memory device(48)(see: Braverman, sec[0033]).
-- With regards to claim 8,
1) the entrance system further including one or more sensor units (S1... Sn) operably connected with the main controller (32), each sensor unit being arranged to monitor a zone (Z 1... Zn) at the entrance system (10) for presence or activity of a person or object, wherein the collected event data represents events occurring in the entrance system (10), the events pertaining to one or more of the following: i) opening of one or more of the movable door members (DM1...DMn) is met by the controller coupled to a sensor(22) which detects an event of an approaching person, such that the doors open(see: Braverman, sec[0028]).
-- With regards to claim 9,
1) the controller (22) is further configured for upon detecting the error condition, retrieving operational data for the entrance system (10) and including the retrieved operational data in the error report (27) is met by the activity log being included in the errors that are displayed in the report(see: Braverman, secs[0049-0050]).
-- With regards to claims 10 and 11,
1) the retrieved operational data for the entrance system includes at least one intrinsic operating parameter of the automatic door operator (30), representing a property or characteristic of a component, part or sub-system of the automatic door operator that can be measured, read or otherwise determined as a direct result of the operation of the automatic door operator (30) and the retrieved operational data for the entrance system includes at least one extrinsic environmental parameter of the entrance system, representing a property or characteristic of the operating environment of the entrance system, not directly related to the internal operation of the automatic door operator is met by the activity log information, including errors and warnings of the door systems(see: Braverman, sec[0049]).
-- Claim 12 recites the exact same subject matter that is recited in claim, and therefore, is met for the reason as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- Claim 13 recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter recited in claim 1, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- Claim 14 recites subject matter that corresponds to subject matter recited in claim 1, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- With regards to claim 15,
1) the remote data receiver (28) is one of:
i) a computerized central monitoring system (110);
ii) a computerized maintenance provider system (120);
and
iii) a computerized product development system (130) is met by the system being monitored by a suer interface, which would have constituted a computerized central monitoring system.
-- Claim 16 recites subject matter that is met as discussed in claim 13 above, as well as:
1) A computer program product comprising computer code for performing the method according claim 13 when the computer program code is executed by a processing device is met by the computer program instructions executed by the processor unit(44)(see: Braverman, sec[0050]).
-- Claim 17 recites subject matter that is met as discussed in claim 13 above, as well as:
1) A computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising computer program code for performing the method according to claim 13 when the computer program code is executed by a processing device is met by the memory(48) of the processor(44), which executes program instructions(see: Braverman, sec[0050]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights