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 Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “waring” which should read --warning--.
Claim 4 recites “protected zone” which should read --protected area-- to maintain consistency in claim terminology.
Claim 5 recites “the protected has” which should read --the protected area has--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,619,397. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same subject matter in different terms. Pending limitations “monitoring whether traffic or objects having the height…have been detected a second time” is equivalent to the patented limitations of “determining a height of all traffic…while traffic lingers.” It is understood that the lingering traffic is present for more than one instantaneous amount of time.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,236,540. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same subject matter in different terms. Pending limitations “monitoring whether traffic or objects having the height…have been detected a second time” is equivalent to the patented limitations of “determining a height of all traffic…while traffic lingers.” It is understood that the lingering traffic is present for more than one instantaneous amount of time.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boerger (US 2008/0022596) in view of Rejc (US 6,243,006).
Regarding claim 1, Boerger discloses a method of controlling an overhead door assembly comprising:
monitoring (Boerger: paragraphs [0022], [0023], [0024]) a protected area (defined by 54 and 60; Fig 1) surrounding a door panel by detecting traffic or objects entering the protected area;
PNG
media_image1.png
594
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
controlling movement of the door panel based on the monitoring of traffic or objects entering the protected area. Boerger discloses that the sensors (48, 50) are photoelectric eyes, proximity sensors, motion detectors, and are of “a wide variety of available sensors for detecting the presence and/or movement of a body, near a doorway” (Boerger: paragraphs [0022], [0023]).Boerger also discloses that the door (22) is operated to close and open and discloses that the door can be closed upon detection by the sensors of a pedestrian passing through the doorway (Boerger: paragraph [0032]).
Boerger does not specifically disclose determining a height of traffic or objects entering the protected area and monitoring whether traffic or objects having the height of the traffic or objects which have entered the protected area have been detected a second time after entering the protected area. However, Rejc discloses a monitoring system in which it is known to control a door by monitoring whether traffic or objects enter a protected area upon detection of an obstacle by the sensors (light curtain), the door is controlled to stop or reverse (Rejc: col 9, lines 1-17). Rejc further discloses that the controller is programmed to control the operation of the door based on the detection of obstacles by the sensors and includes operating parameters (via thresholds and filters) and selecting a mode of operation (whether the door stops or reverses or closes) for the door based from the operating parameters based upon detection. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Boerger such that the sensors (48, 50) are substituted with alternative known means for detecting obstacles at a doorway such as light curtains, as taught by Rejc. Light curtains are a known sensing means, as taught by Rejc and one would be motivated to modify the sensors Boerger since Boerger specifically teaches that alternative sensors that detect presence near a doorway can be used. Further, one would be motivated to further modify Boerger such that the door is controlled by the detection of the sensors and programmed, as taught by Rejc, to therefore control the movement of the door and stop or reverse door movement upon detection of an obstacle since it is a known technique for improving safety of a door and preventing injury. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Further, Boerger in view of Rejc discloses the controller determines a height of any traffic detected by the first light curtain or the second light curtain. Rejc discloses that the light curtains include a controller that determines a height of traffic by the interruption of beams of the light curtain and the controller outputs a signal based on the height of the traffic determined by the controller; an object of a certain height interrupts the beams up to the height of the object, therefore determines the height of the object. It is further taught that operation of the door is stopped when traffic lingers until traffic passes completely through and the light curtains are no longer interrupted (Rejc: col 7, lines 5-19 and 47-57; col 8, lines 5-35; when an obstacle is tall enough to obstruct a beam it indicates an obstruction which in turn controls operation of the door to stop). Boerger in view of Rejc teaches that if traffic is initially detected crossing one of the first light curtain or the second light curtain and does not subsequently cross through either of the first light curtain or the second light curtain, the first light curtain continues to detect an obstruction and the door is stopped from moving due to the interruption, therefore it is understood that operation is stopped until traffic matching the height of any detected traffic is sensed by the first light curtain or the second light curtain exiting the area of the door (when traffic exits there is no longer an interruption of either of the light curtains). The lingering time is understood to be detection at a second time after entering the protected area. Thus, in the modification above, the method would include determining a height of traffic or objects entering the protected area and monitoring whether traffic or objects having the height of the traffic or objects which have entered the protected area have been detected a second time after entering the protected area
Regarding claim 2, modified Boerger discloses the step of warning approaching traffic to impending movement of the door panel (Boerger: paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Boerger discloses the step of warning approaching traffic that the door panel is moving (indicator light).
Regarding claim 4, modified Boerger disclose the step of warning approaching traffic that traffic or objects have been detected entering the protected zone (Boerger: paragraphs [0022]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Boerger in view of Rejc discussed above teaches stopping the warning once traffic or objects having the height of traffic or objects which was detected entering the protected area has been detected a second time after entering the protected area.
Regarding claim 6, modified Boerger in view of Rejc discussed above teaches controlling movement of the door panel is holding the door panel in an open position if traffic or objects are detected entering the protected area and have not been detected a second time after entering the protected area (Rejc teaches control to stop; Rejc: col 9, lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 7, modified Boerger in view of Rejc discussed above teaches controlling movement of the door panel is slowing a speed (Rejc teaches operation parameters) of the door panel if traffic or objects are detected entering the protected area and have not been detected a second time after entering the protected area.
Regarding claim 8, modified Boerger in view of Rejc discussed above teaches wherein controlling movement of the door panel is reversing a direction of movement of the door panel if traffic or objects are detected entering the protected area and have not been detected a second time after entering the protected area (lingering time).
Regarding claim 9, modified Boerger in view of Rejc discussed above teaches the step of providing a warning if a fault (control error taught by Rejc) is detected in the overhead door assembly.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boerger (US 2008/0022596) in view of Rejc (US 6,243,006), as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Rejc (US 7,084,388)
Regarding claim 10, modified Boerger in view of Rejc discussed above teaches the use of sensors for monitoring the door, however fails to disclose further comprising the step of monitoring a speed of traffic approaching the door panel. However, Rejc ‘388 teaches the known method step of controlling a door by detecting the speed of an object (col 2, lines 22-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify the method and include the detection and monitoring a speed of traffic approaching the door panel since such step is a known step in monitoring an area around a door. One would be motivated to include the step in order to improve the door system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate 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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634