DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Examiner called applicant’s attorney Jeffrey Gray at 704-331-3638 on 9/23/2026. The Examiner left a voice message to state that applicant’s attorney is encouraged to call the Examiner at 571-270-5251 if applicant has any questions about this Final Rejection office action and would like to discuss a way to move this application forward.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 8,390,219 to Houser, and in view of USPN 7,234,201 to Brown.
As to claim 1, Houser teaches a door system(col. 1: lines 55 – col. 2: lines 47), a linkage assembly configured for coupling to the motor and to a wall, a door frame, or a door(col. 1: lines 12-23),
wherein the door system is a door closer(col. 1: lines 57-62 wherein the door operator is equivalent to a door closer), the door system comprises: a closer(col. 1: lines 57-62 wherein the door operator is equivalent to a door closer); a motor(fig. 5: “550”); a power source(fig. 5: “506”); and a controller (fig. 5: “502”) comprising: one or more memories (fig. 5: “554”) having computer readable instructions stored thereon(col. 7: lines 64 – col. 8: lines 3); one or more communication interfaces (fig. 5: “504”, “580”); and one or more processors(fig. 5: “552”) operatively coupled to the one or more memories(fig. 5: “554”), wherein when executed the computer readable instructions is configured to cause the one or more processors (col. 8: lines 15-52) to: provide an assist closing force to a door using the motor as the closer is closing the door using a closing force(col. 2: lines 2-11 & col. 9: lines 14-25 wherein apparatus and method are taught to provide a closing force to a door using the motor as the closer is closing the door using a closing force).
Houser does not teach a closer wherein the closer is a spring system, a hydraulic system, or a pneumatic system, the closer being configured to provide a closing force.
Brown teaches a closer wherein the closer is a spring system, a hydraulic system, or a pneumatic system, the closer being configured to provide a closing force(col. 2: lines 62 – col. 3: lines 10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Brown into Houser since Houser suggests a door motor control system and Brown suggests the beneficial use of a door closer having a motor driven closing force in the analogous art of door motor control technology.
The motivation for this comes from the fact that Brown teaches a door closer having a motor driven closing force which can be used to improve the door motor control system disclosed by Houser.
As to claim 2, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 1, wherein when executed the computer readable instructions further configured to cause the one or more processors to: increase an opening force of the door during manual opening using the motor to assist the manual opening(Brown col. 3: lines 11-14).
As to claim 3, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 2, wherein when executed the computer readable instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: receive a selection of one or more operating parameters for the door closer wherein the controller operates the door system based on the one or more operating parameters(Houser col. 8: lines 53 – col. 9: lines 29).
As to claim 4, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 3, wherein the selection of the one or more operating parameters comprise setting the opening force or an opening speed to control the opening force(Houser col. 1: lines 38-51).
As to claim 5, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 3, wherein the selection of the one or more operating parameters comprise setting the assist closing force or a closing speed to control the assist closing force(Houser col. 1: lines 38-51).
As to claim 6, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 3, wherein the selection of one or more operating parameters comprise the assist closing force for the motor to close to the door based on an opening force used to manually open the door to overcome the closing force of the closer(Houser col. 1: lines 38-51).
As to claim 7, Houser in view of Brown The door system of claim 3, wherein the one or more communication interfaces establish a wireless connection (fig. 5: “508, 520”) with a user computer system over a network, and wherein the one or more communication interfaces receive the selection of the one or more operating parameters from the user computer system(Houser col. 7: lines 46 – col. 8: lines 3).
As to claim 8, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 3, wherein the selection of the one or more operating parameters for the door closer is based on plurality of operating parameter sets that provide different pre-selected operating parameters(Houser col. 7: lines 46 – col. 8: lines 3).
As to claim 9, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 1, wherein the closer is the spring system that utilizes a spring force to close the door after manual opening(Houser col. 1: lines 20-23).
As to claim 10, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 1, wherein the closer is a hydraulic system or a pneumatic system that closes the door after manual opening(col. 1: lines 59-62 wherein a conventional door closer uses a hydraulic system).
As to claim 11, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 1 wherein the power source is a battery(Houser col. 8: lines 4-14 wherein the inverter based power supply inherently has a battery or DC power source).
As to claim 12, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 11 wherein the battery is a rechargeable battery(Houser col. 8: lines 4-14 wherein the inverter based power supply inherently has a battery or DC power source which includes but not limit to a rechargeable battery).
As to claim 13, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 1 wherein the motor is a reversible electric motor(Houser fig. 5: “550 – motor” wherein the motor can be any kind of motor including but not limiting to a reversible electric motor).
As to claim 14, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 1, wherein the motor is a unidirectional motor(Houser fig. 5: “550 – motor” wherein the motor can be any kind of motor including but not limiting to a unidirectional motor).
As to claim 15, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 1, wherein the closer is the pneumatic system that closes the door after manual opening (Brown col. 2: lines 62 – col. 3: lines 10).
As to claim 16, Houser in view of Brown teaches the door system of claim 1, wherein the door closer further comprises: a drive system comprising: the motor; and a drive train(Houser col. 4: lines 37-61).
As to claim 17, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
As to claim 18, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 2.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
As to claim 20, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 2.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 8,547,046 to Burris discloses a door closer control system.
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/DAVID LUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
