DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "computer-readable storage medium” to include non-statutory matter. The applicant describes a computer-readable storage medium as including open ended language and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible mediums, including non-statutory mediums (see paragraph 0141). The words "storage" and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claim is drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore this claim is not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to read as a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
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 1-14 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 recites “the ATS”. The metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. What is ATS? Does ATS stand for automated trolley system (ATS) or automatic train stop (ATS) or automated train system (ATS) or something else?
Regarding claim 5, the metes and bounds of “each entry and exit plan” in Step 1.2 is unclear. Are the plans referred to in step 1.2 the same or different from the plans in step 1.1?
Regarding claim 5, the metes and bounds of “the entry and exit plan” in Step 1.4 is unclear. Are the plans referred to in step 1.4 the same or different from the plans in steps 1.1, 1.2?
Claims 2-4 and 6-14 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1 and are rejected based on their dependency thereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0127590 (Braverman) (cited by Applicant).
Claim 1:
The cited prior art describes an automatic garage door control system based on ats timetable, being used for implementing remote automatic control of garage doors, wherein the ATS timetable-based automatic control system comprises (Braverman: “The present invention relates to automatic door systems, and, more particularly, to a door system user interface for use in an automatic door system.” Paragraph 0003; see the door 12 as illustrated in figure 1; “In the present embodiment, door 12 is depicted as a dual horizontal sliding door, having two sliding door panels 12-1 and 12-2. However, it is to be understood that the present invention may be adapted for use with other types of doors, such as for example, a swinging door, a revolving door or an overhead vertical sliding door.” Paragraph 0023)
a garage door plan management module, (Braverman: see the menu screens 90 including schedule 92 and changeover 94 as illustrated in figure 7B)
a garage door information maintenance module and (Braverman: see the maintenance details 80 as illustrated in figure 7A)
a garage door control processing module, wherein the garage door control processing module outputs (Braverman: see the display panel 34 as illustrated in figure 1)
garage door control commands and alarm events according to times calculated by the garage door plan management module and (Braverman: see the door operation schedules 52 with dates and times and modes as illustrated in figure 4)
garage door basic information provided by the garage door information maintenance module. (Braverman: “Referring again to FIG. 7A, the Display Maintenance Details Screen 80 provides the "Maintenance" option, with the ability to review maintenance records on display panel 34 by manipulating one of the scroll up button 40 or scroll down button 42. For example, based on a door cycle count, a customer may be advised of the expected lifetime of door 12 and the remaining cycles of various components, such as for example, the remaining cycles for motor 26 and mechanical drive linkage 28 of door driver mechanism 20. Also accessible is the automatic door system 10 install date and service dates.” Paragraph 0064; “Display Technical Support Contact Information Screen 76 provides the "Service Contact" option, and various contact information, e.g., a phone number, for a service contact for automatic door system 10 may be displayed on display panel 34 by manipulating one of the scroll up button 40 or scroll down button 42.” Paragraph 0061)
Claim 4:
The cited prior art describes the Automatic garage door control system based on ats timetable according to claim 1, wherein the garage door control processing module is a control logic processing unit, is respectively connected to the garage door plan management module and the garage door information maintenance module and transmits information. (Braverman: see the processor unit 44 as illustrated in figure 3)
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0127590 (Braverman) (cited by Applicant) in view of
Jacobsen, Per Munk, and David Pisinger. "Train shunting at a workshop area." Flexible services and manufacturing journal 23.2 (2011): 156-180 (Jacobsen).
Claim 2:
Braverman does not explicitly describe train information as described below. However, Jacobsen teaches the train information as described below.
The cited prior art describes the Automatic garage door control system based on ats timetable according to claim 1,
wherein the garage door plan management module is used for
maintaining on-line and off-line times of corresponding trains on a parking line, (Jacobsen: see the schedule of trains as illustrated in Figure 3)
updating the on-line and off-line times according to entry and exit plans of one day and changes of the entry and exit plans of said day, and (Jacobsen: see the updating of the solution space for the schedule of trains as described in section 3.1)
handling real-time events of the trains when the trains return to a garage. (Braverman: “Thus, the door system user interface 16 provides a versatile user interface device, which provides user options for automatically controlling the door operation mode at door controller 18 previously not available, as well as providing real-time status information, and error logging for door controller 18.” Paragraph 0081; “For example, processor unit 44 of door system user interface 16 may be configured to poll door controller 18 in real time for the occurrence of the door errors, in which processor unit 44 of the door system user interface 16 is configured to receive a current door error from door controller 18 via communications link 30, and display the current door error on display panel 34 of door system user interface. Such a door error may be, for example, an error of "failure to close" when operating in the "automatic" door operation mode (see Table 1, above).” Paragraph 0048) (Jacobsen: see the trains as illustrated in figure 3)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Braverman, namely, automatic door control system, with the known techniques of Learmonth, namely, train data system, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Braverman to control a door based on various data inputs with the teachings of Learmonth to determine how to move trains around a maintenance area would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved door control system. In other words, the combination of references provides for door control based on train information based on the teachings of door control based on various inputs in Braverman and the teachings of controlling maintenance area based on various data in Jacobsen.
Claim 3:
Braverman does not explicitly describe parking lines as described below. However, Jacobsen teaches the parking lines as described below.
The cited prior art describes the Automatic garage door control system based on ats timetable according to claim 1, wherein the garage door information maintenance module is used for saving a corresponding relationship between garage doors and parking lines, as well as basic information of garage door devices. (Jacobsen: see the tracks and workshop configuration as illustrated in figure 2; see the correlation between trains and workshop and tracks as illustrated in Table 1 and figure 3) (Braverman: see the door operation schedules 52 with dates and times and modes as illustrated in figure 4)
Braverman and Jacobsen are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 6,046,562 describes an automatic door control system.
U.S. Patent No. 10,837,217 describes an automatic door control system.
U.S. Patent No. 7,375,484 describes an automatic barrier control system.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0299522 describes a control system for a movable barrier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights