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
Claim 13 was previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 04/13/2026. Accordingly, the rejection to the claims have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190186181 to Robertson in view of US 11097401 to Morton.
Regarding claim 1, Robertson discloses:
A release apparatus (fig 1) for a door holder and release system (1), the release apparatus comprising: a magnet (14); a drive (16) operatively coupled to the magnet; and an energy storage device (20c) operatively coupled to the drive; wherein the energy storge device is configured to be operatively coupled to a power supply (20a) for storing energy in the energy storage device; and wherein during a disengagement event when the power supply is reduced, the energy storage device powers the drive to switch the magnet to reduce a magnetic field of the magnet (see figs and 7 and paragraph 0056).
Robertson does not explicitly disclose: a magnet, wherein the magnet is a switchable permanent magnet comprising a first permanent magnet; and a second permanent magnet; moving the first permanent magnet or the second permanent magnet with respect to each other.
However, Morton teaches that it is well known in the art for a switchable permanent magnet to comprise a first permanent magnet (left 250, fig 29); and a second permanent magnet (right 250, fig 29); moving the first permanent magnet or the second permanent magnet with respect to each other (see figs 29 and 30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the permanent magnets as taught by Morton into the assembly of Robertson at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a magnet. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Regarding claim 2, Robertson in view of Morton discloses:
The release apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first permanent magnet is stacked with the second permanent magnet (fig 29, Morton), and during the switching of the magnet the first permanent magnet is rotated with respect to the second permanent magnet by the drive (as per the combination).
Regarding claim 3, Robertson in view of Morton discloses:
The release apparatus claim 1, wherein the energy storage device comprises a capacitor (20c is a capacitor).
Regarding claim 6, Robertson in view of Morton does not specifically teach wherein the energy storage device utilizes 10 milliamps or less to charge the energy storage device. However, Robertson does teach a power supply utilizing a current to charge the energy storage device. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to alter the milliamps of the power supply so that it could have many values usable in a variety of applications, including 10 or less milliamps since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Robertson in view of Morton does not specifically teach wherein the power supply operatively coupled to the energy storage device comprises a 12V, 18V, 24V, or 120V power supply. However, Robertson does teach a power supply comprising a voltage. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to alter the voltage of power supply so that it could have many values usable in a variety of applications, including 12V, 18V, 24V, or 120V since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Robertson in view of Morton discloses:
The release apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a controller (20d) comprising: one or more memories having computer readable code stored thereon (programs that 20d is set to perform, see paragraph 0049); and one or more processing devices (microcontroller, see paragraph 0049) operatively coupled to the one or more memories, wherein when executed the computer readable code is configured to cause the one or more processing devices to: receive a selection of a holding force (increase in attraction) for the magnet; and activate the drive to adjust the magnet to set the holding force (see paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 12, Robertson in view of Morton discloses:
The release apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a controller (20d) comprising: one or more memories having computer readable code stored thereon(programs that 20d is set to perform, see paragraph 0049); and one or more processing devices (microcontroller, see paragraph 0049) operatively coupled to the one or more memories, wherein when executed the computer readable code is configured to cause the one or more processing devices to: receive a signal (command input) to activate the drive; and engage the drive to reduce the magnetic field from the magnet (see paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 14, Robertson discloses:
A door holder and release system (fig 1), the system comprising :a door holder (door holder unit) configured to be operatively coupled with a door (door, fig 1); a release apparatus (1) configured for operative coupling with a support (18), the release apparatus comprising: a magnet (14); a drive (16) operatively coupled to the magnet; and an energy storage device (20c) operatively coupled to the drive; wherein the energy storge device is configured to be operatively coupled to a power supply (20a) for storing energy in the energy storage device; and wherein during a disengagement event when the power supply is interrupted, the energy storage device powers the drive to switch the magnet to reduce a magnetic field of the magnet (see paragraph 0056).
Robertson does not explicitly disclose: a magnet, wherein the magnet is a switchable permanent magnet comprising a first permanent magnet; and a second permanent magnet; moving the first permanent magnet or the second permanent magnet with respect to each other.
However, Morton teaches that it is well known in the art for a switchable permanent magnet to comprise a first permanent magnet (left 250, fig 29); and a second permanent magnet (right 250, fig 29); moving the first permanent magnet or the second permanent magnet with respect to each other (see figs 29 and 30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the permanent magnets as taught by Morton into the assembly of Robertson at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a magnet. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Regarding claim 15, Robertson in view of Morton discloses:
The door holder and release system of claim 14, wherein the first permanent magnet is stacked with the second permanent magnet (fig 29, Morton), and during the switching of the magnet the first permanent magnet is rotated with respect to the second permanent magnet by the drive (as per the combination), and wherein the energy storage device comprises a capacitor (20c is a capacitor, Robertson).
Claim 17 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 18 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim 19 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 20, Robertson discloses:
A method (figs 6 and 7) of controlling a release apparatus (fig 1) of a door holder and release system (1), the release apparatus comprising a magnet (14), a drive (16) operatively coupled to the magnet, and an energy storage device (20c) operatively coupled to the drive, the method comprising: identifying a disengagement event; and activating the drive using the energy storage device to power the drive to reduce a magnetic field of the magnet (see paragraph 0056).
Robertson does not explicitly disclose: a magnet, wherein the magnet is a switchable permanent magnet comprising a first permanent magnet; and a second permanent magnet; moving the first permanent magnet or the second permanent magnet with respect to each other.
However, Morton teaches that it is well known in the art for a switchable permanent magnet to comprise a first permanent magnet (left 250, fig 29); and a second permanent magnet (right 250, fig 29); moving the first permanent magnet or the second permanent magnet with respect to each other (see figs 29 and 30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the permanent magnets as taught by Morton into the assembly of Robertson at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a magnet. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Claim(s) 4-5, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190186181 to Robertson in view of US 11097401 to Morton and in further view of GB 2450991 to Goddard.
Regarding claim 4, Robertson in view of Morton does not explicitly disclose:
The release apparatus of claim 1, wherein the energy storage device comprises a battery. However, Goddard teaches that it is well known in the art for an energy storage device to be a capacitor or a battery (page 2 line 18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the battery as taught by Goddard into the assembly of Robertson in view of Morton at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing an energy storage device. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Regarding claim 5, Robertson in view of Morton does not explicitly disclose:
The release apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a drive train operatively coupled to the magnet and the drive; wherein the drive is a motor or an actuator; and wherein the drive train increases torque or reduces current of the motor or the actuator.
However, Goddard teaches that it is well known in the art for: a drive train (48, 50, 52) operatively coupled to the magnet and the drive; wherein the drive is a motor (44) or an actuator; and wherein the drive train increases torque or reduces current of the motor or the actuator (page 6, lines 7-10). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Goddard into Robertson in view of Morton at least because doing so would provide a mechanical method of reversing the magnet, thereby adding additional safety and control over the state of the door holder.
Regarding claim 13, Robertson in view of Morton discloses:
The release apparatus of claim 12, wherein the signal is a loss of power from the power supply (power supply turns off).
Robertson in view of Morton does not explicitly disclose: and wherein engaging the motor to reduce the magnetic field comprises using the energy storage device to provide the power the motor.
However, Goddard teaches the use of an energy storage device (capacitor or battery) to provide power to the motor (page 8 lines 30-34 and page 9 lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Goddard into Robertson in view of Morton at least because doing so would provide a mechanical method of reversing the magnet via the motor, thereby adding additional safety and control over the state of the door holder.
Claim 16 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190186181 to Robertson in view of US 11097401 to Morton, and in further view of CN 201352364 to Liu.
Regarding claim 8, Robertson in view of Morton does not explicitly disclose:
The release apparatus of claim 1, wherein the power supply operatively coupled to the energy storage device comprises power over ethernet.
However, Liu teaches that it is well known in the art for a power supply to comprise power over ethernet (last 2 paragraphs of page 2 of attached translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the power over ethernet as taught by Liu into the assembly of Robertson in view of Morton at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a power supply. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190186181 to Robertson in view of US 11097401 to Morton, and in further view of US 20230008687 to Hasenstein.
Regarding claim 9, Robertson in view of Morton discloses:
The release apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a sensor (20e)
Robertson does not explicitly disclose: a sensor for sending a signal to indicate a status of the magnet.
However, Hasenstein teaches that it is well known in the art to utilize multiple different sensors including a sensor (MBS) for sending a signal to indicate a status of the magnet (paragraph 0020). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hasenstein into Robertson in view of Morton at least because doing so would provide a system monitoring to control the door holder and prevent unwanted situations.
Regarding claim 10, Robertson in view of Morton and Hasenstein discloses:
The release apparatus of claim 9, wherein the sensor is a magnetic bond sensor (MBS), and the signal indicates when the magnet is engaged or disengaged or a magnet holding force (see paragraph 0020, Hasenstein).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights