DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 11/14/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 15 are currently pending and have been examined below. Claims 4 and 12-14 have been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 5, “in an extended direction of each movable means” seems that it should read --in an extended position of each movable means --.
Appropriate correction is required. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 15 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.
Claim 1
Recitations such as “a second position in distance to the passing object to a predetermined value” on lines 5-6 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what is applicant attempting to claim. It is unclear how is the second position ‘in distance to the passing object’ or is applicant referring to a different element of the invention (i.e., the plurality of movable means)?
Additionally, what does the applicant mean by the limitation “a second position in distance to the passing object to a predetermined value”? Is the second position in distance to a predetermined value? Please clarify.
Claim 11
Recitations such as “wherein additionally at least one distance sensor is located in the passage area before and behind the plurality of movable means” on lines 1-3 of claim 11 renders the claim indefinite because the claim only requires one distance sensor yet it is located in two places (i.e., before and behind the plurality of movable means).
Recitations such as “the at least one additional distance sensors” on line 3 is also indefinite because it is referring to more than one distance sensors and the claim only introduced one additional distance sensor. Is the applicant also attempting to refer to the distance sensors recited in claim 1? Note that those sensors are located at the tip area of each movable means as such they do not seem to be capable of being configured to pre-assess dimensions of the passing object.
All claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected for including the 112 issues of the claim from which it depends. Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed 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 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landert (US 6084367) in view of Jankovsky (US 7481598) and in further view of Jette (US 8308393).
Claim 1
(Landert discloses) A gate system (figure 3e) for entering and exiting a building or installment through a passage area (the passage opening when the members 12 are opened) comprising a plurality of movable means (12) at the passage area in a first position (closed position) which does not allow passage, characterized in that the plurality of movable means are capable of forming an opening in the passage area corresponding to a shape of a passing object by adapting a second position (open position adapting the shape of the passing person in figure 3e) in distance to the passing object to a predetermined value without touching the passing object (figure 3e; Excerpt 1 and Excerpt 2 from cols. 7-8 below),
the gate system including at least one distance sensor (sensors discussed in Excerpt 2 below), the at least one distance sensor configured for measuring a distance to the passing object (lines 58-67 of col. 7 to lines 1-3 of col. 8).
Landert does disclose the plurality of movable means each having their own sensors (lines 25-29 of col. 6), but is silent regarding:
(i) the at least one distance sensor located at a tip area of each movable means, the tip area being closest to the passing object.
(ii) further wherein the plurality of movable means are combined with a garage door system having a plain door or rollable curtain.
(i) (However, Jankovsky teaches) at least one distance sensor (116; Jankovsky figure 1A) located at a tip area of a movable means (102), the tip area being closest to the passing object (this is taught when the barrier is moved to the open position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the distance sensors of Landert at the tip area of each movable means as taught by Jankovsky, with a reasonable expectation of success, for an improved accuracy of reading the shape of the passing object and for significantly reducing the chances of the movable means hitting the passing object.
(ii) (However, Jette teaches) further wherein a movable means (16; Jette figures 5-6) is combined with a garage door system having a plain door (see movable means combined with garage door system in Jette figures 5-6 with a plain door shown in closed position in Jette figure 7) or rollable curtain (this was interpreted as an “or” clause therefore only one of the options is required to be taught by the prior art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the gate system of modified Landert with a garage door system as taught by Jette, with a reasonable expectation of success, to enhance the security of the garage door system further preventing unwarranted entries from people or object without authorized access.
PNG
media_image1.png
208
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 1
PNG
media_image2.png
176
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 2
Claim 2
(Landert, as modified above, discloses) The gate system according to claim 1, wherein the gate system, via the plurality of movable means, is configured to shape the opening in breadth and height corresponding to the passing object (figure 3e).
Claim 3
(Landert, as modified above, discloses) The gate system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of movable means are located at each side of the passage area (figure 3) or at a ceiling of the passage area (note that this was interpreted as an “or” clause therefore only one of the options is required to be taught by the prior art).
Claim 5
(Landert, as modified above, discloses) The gate system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one distance sensor located at the tip area of each movable means is configured for measuring a distance in an extended direction of each movable means (this is taught via the combination above).
Claim 6
(Landert, as modified above, discloses) The gate system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one distance sensor is located at the tip area of each movable means and is directed towards the passing object (this is taught via the combination above).
Claim 7
(Landert, as modified above, discloses) The gate system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of movable means include telescope bars or plates with or without sub-plates (see 12 in figure 3e as plates without sub-plates; this limitation was interpreted as an “or” clause, therefore only one of the options is required to be taught by the prior art).
Claim 10
(Landert, as modified above, discloses) The gate system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of movable means include movable means located at a ceiling and a bottom of the passage area (Annotated figure 3e below; note that ‘at’ was interpreted as --In or near the area occupied by; in or near the location of--).
PNG
media_image3.png
512
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3e
Claim 11
(Landert, as modified above, discloses) The gate system according to claim 1.
The embodiment of modified Landert above is silent regarding wherein additionally at least one distance sensor is located in the passage area before and behind the plurality of movable means and the at least one additional distance sensors are configured to pre-assess dimensions of the passing object and to trigger movement of the plurality of movable means to the second position.
(However, another embodiment of Landert teaches) wherein additionally at least one distance sensor (sensor system V; figure 10; Excerpt 3 from col. 12 below) is located in a passage area (the passage area near B, G, and R; figure 10) before and behind a plurality of movable means (plurality of movable means near B, G, and R; Excerpt 3 below discusses sensors on both sides of the door system and senses B, R, and G which are respectively located before and behind the plurality of movable means) and the at least one additional distance sensors are configured to pre-assess dimensions of the passing object and to trigger movement of the plurality of movable means to a second position (Excerpt 3 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the gate system of modified Landert with the additional distance sensors of the embodiment of Landert, with a reasonable expectation of success, for predictably sensing and detecting the approaching passengers on both directions thereby significantly improving the speed of the opening of the movable means.
PNG
media_image4.png
511
626
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 3
Claim 15
(Landert, as modified above, discloses) The gate system according to claim 1, wherein the each movable means of the plurality of movable means is movable and configured to move from a starting position (position shown in figure 3e before the object or person has passed) in front of the passing object to an end position behind the passing object (closed position after the object or person has passed).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landert in view of Jankovsky and in view of Jette, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, and 15 above, in further view of Sandbrook (US 11377899).
Claim 8
(Landert, as modified above, discloses) The gate system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of movable means are integrated into side walls (figure 3e).
Landert fails to disclose wherein the plurality of movable means are integrated into a ceiling of the passage area.
(However, Sandbrook teaches) wherein a movable means (70; Sandbrook figures 1-3) is integrated into a ceiling of a passage area (ceiling of member 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the gate system of modified Landert such that the movable means are integrated into the ceiling as taught by Sandbrook, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide additional passage area opening combinations to the gate system and to further optimize the passage area opening based on the shape of the object or person. Thus, the system accurately closes more gaps without contacting the object or person and further preventing any unwelcome elements sneaking into the gaps within the opening.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landert in view of Jankovsky in view of Jette in view of Sandbrook, as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Ren et al. (CN 107274498) (hereinafter “Ren”).
Claim 9
(Landert, as modified above, discloses) The gate system according to claim 8.
Modified Landert fails to disclose wherein the plurality of movable means located at the side walls and the ceiling are distanced from each other in a direction of passing of the passing object.
(However, Ren teaches) wherein a plurality of movable means (9-12; Ren figure 3) are distanced from each other in a direction of passing of a passing object (the moving direction of the vehicle in Ren figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the plurality of movable means of modified Landert such that they are located to be distanced from each other in the direction of passing of the passing object as taught by Ren, with a reasonable expectation of success, for providing additional layers of security to the gate system such that the additional placements act as multiple checkpoints for the vehicle to pass through.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments directed to the drawing and claim objections have been considered and the objections were withdrawn. The amendments directed to the 112(b) rejection was also considered by the examiner.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they were not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments were directed to the amendments to the independent claim 1. Applicant argues “Indeed, none of the references cited discloses a gate system including at least one distance sensor located at a tip area of each movable means” (page 3 of the Remarks section), however this was found not persuasive as the claimed feature is not novel. Jankovsky above teaches sensors at the tip area of the movable means and examiner notes that one of the ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the movable means of Landert with the sensors at the tip area especially since the movable means of Landert requires precise distance measurements in order to open the passage area based on the parameters and shape of the passing object/person.
Applicant also argues “In contrast, Sandbrook discloses that its moveable means are attached to the ceiling. This requires additional space, whereas integrating the moveable means into the ceiling allows them to be pulled up into the ceiling. Thus, dependent claim 8 is submitted to be independently allowable” (page 4 of the Remarks section). This was also found unpersuasive as examiner notes that ‘integrated’ were interpreted per the definition below and the movable means of Sandbrook meets this definition of ‘integrated’.
PNG
media_image5.png
216
729
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Source: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634