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
Claims 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 3, limitation “the movement sensor” should be --a movement sensor--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 12-15 rejected due to their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) “recites” an abstract idea per the 2019 PEG:
Re claim 1,
The mathematical concepts (formulas, calculations, data structures, and algorithms) and the recited “movement-to-event model” reflects mathematical relationships and classification algorithms applied to sensor data.
The offending clauses include:
“analyze the movement of the door during a predefined time period based on the obtained movement data” (data analysis/calculation).
“utilize a movement-to-event model to determine a probable event that caused the movement of the door” (algorithmic classification/determination).
Mental processes (observations, evaluations, and classifications capable of being performed in the human mind):
The offending clause:
“determine a probable event that caused the movement of the door” (inferring cause from observed motion is, at a high level, an evaluation/classification that can be performed mentally, notwithstanding computer implementation).
The “obtain … movement data … by the movement sensor” is data gathering and does not itself remove the claim from the abstract idea groupings.
Re claim 11,
Mathematical concepts (formulas, calculations, data structures, and algorithms) and the recited “movement-to-event model” reflects mathematical relationships and classification algorithms applied to sensor data.
The offending clauses include:
“analyzing the movement of the door during a predefined time period based on the obtained movement data” (data analysis/calculation).
“utilizing a movement-to-event model to determine a probable event that caused the movement of the door” (algorithmic classification/determination).
Mental processes (observations, evaluations, and classifications capable of being performed in the human mind):
The offending clause:
“determine a probable event that caused the movement of the door” (inferring cause from observed motion is, at a high level, an evaluation/classification that can be performed mentally, notwithstanding computer implementation).
The “obtaining … movement data … by the movement sensor” is data gathering and does not itself remove the claim from the abstract idea groupings.
All remaining dependent claims also include similar language, for example,
Re claim 2 and 12: “movement-to-event model is based on known movements of the door linked to known events” (algorithmic classification/determination)
Re claim 3: “determine a movement pattern describing the movement of the door during the predefined time period and wherein the movement-to-event model is comparing the determined movement pattern describing the movement of the door with known movement patterns describing different movements of the door caused by known events” (observations, evaluations, and classifications capable of being performed in the human mind)
Re claim 4 and 13: “control operation of the door based on the probable event that caused the movement of the door” (recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea)
Re claim 5: “determine a position of the door when the probable event that caused the movement of the door occurred” (observations, evaluations, and classifications capable of being performed in the human mind)
Re claim 6: “wherein the movement data indicative of a movement of the door is indicative of a movement in at least a first direction (x,y,z) in relation to the door” (mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships)
Re claim 7: “wherein the movement of the door during the predefined time period is described by a function describing a movement amplitude in at least a first direction (x,y,z) in relation to the door over time” (mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships)
Re claim 8: “wherein an impact movement energy, causing the movement of the door during the predefined time period, is determined by calculating the surface area under the function describing the movement amplitude in the at least first direction (x,y,z) in relation to the door over time” (mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations)
Re claim 9: “wherein the movement-to-event model is trained based on historical event data and/or user input data by using artificial intelligence models and/or statistical models” (mathematical concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations)
Re claim 14: “determining a position of the door when the probable event that caused the movement of the door occurred” (observations, evaluations, and classifications capable of being performed in the human mind)
Re claim 15: “a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processing circuitry and configured to cause execution of the method” (recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea)
Only claim 10 appears to meet the criteria for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 101, since it claims a motor and operation. (applies a use of a particular machine)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JONSSON et al. (US 20210389172 A1).
Re claim 1. JONSSON discloses (abstract [0051-0053]) a system (FIG.1) for collision and intrusion detection of a door (5), the system (FIG.1) comprises:
a movement sensor (10) configured to be arranged at the door (5) to detect movement of the door (5); [0034-0036]
a processing circuitry (FIG.4 – circuitry 1), configured to cause the system (FIG.1) to:
-obtain, by the movement sensor (10), movement data indicative of a movement of the door (5); [0042]
-analyze the movement of the door (5) during a predefined time period based on the obtained movement data [0043-0054]; and
-utilize a movement-to-event model to determine a probable event that caused the movement of the door (5). [0055]
Re claim 2. JONSSON discloses (FIG.7A-7C) the system (100) according to claim 1, wherein the movement-to-event model is based on known movements of the door (1) linked to known events. [0053, 0072]
Re claim 3. JONSSON discloses the system (FIG.6) according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry (FIG.4) is further configured to:
-determine a movement pattern (18) describing the movement of the door (5) during the predefined time period and wherein the movement-to-event model is comparing the determined movement pattern describing the movement of the door (5) with known movement patterns describing different movements of the door (5) caused by known events. [0069-0071]
Re claim 4. JONSSON discloses the system (FIG.1) according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry (FIG.4) is further configured to, cause the system (FIG.1) to:
control operation (i.e. access control is considered to encompass a control operation of a door for any reason) of the door (5) based on the probable event that caused the movement of the door (5). [0041]
Re claim 6. JONSSON discloses (FIG.6) the system (FIG.1) according to claim 1, wherein the movement data indicative of a movement of the door (5) is indicative of a movement in at least a first direction (x, y, z) in relation to the door (5). [0069]
Re claim 7. JONSSON discloses (FIG.6-7C) the system (FIG.1) according to claim 1, wherein the movement of the door (5) during the predefined time period is described by a function describing (i.e. acceleration amplitude, impulse, sideway movement, etc.) a movement amplitude [0071-0075] in at least a first direction (x, y, z) in relation to the door (5) over time.
Re claim 9. JONSSON discloses [0055] the system (FIG.1) according to claim 1, wherein the movement-to-event model is trained based on historical event data and/or user input data by using artificial intelligence models and/or statistical models (i.e. machine learning models implicitly train based on historical event data and user input data as needed).
Re claim 11. JONSSON discloses (as applied for claim 1 – given similarity between claim limitations) a method for collision and intrusion detection of a door (5), the method comprising:
- (S1) obtaining, by the movement sensor (10), movement data indicative of a movement of the door (5);
- (S2) analyzing the movement of the door (5) during a predefined time period based on the obtained movement data; and
- (S3) utilizing a movement-to-event model to determine a probable event that caused the movement of the door (5).
Re claim 12. (as for claim 2) the method according to claim 11, the method further comprising:
-(S4) determining a movement pattern describing the movement of the door (5) during the predefined time period and wherein the movement-to-event model is comparing the determined movement pattern describing the movement of the door (5) with known movement patterns describing different movements of the door (5) caused by known events.
Re claim 13. (as for claim 4) the method according to claim 11, the method further comprising:
-(S6) controlling operation of the door (5) based on the probable event that caused the movement of the door (5).
Re claim 14. (as for claim 5) the method according to claim 11, the method further comprising:
-(S7) determining a position of the door (5) when the probable event that caused the movement of the door (5) occurred.
Re claim 15. (as applied for claim 1 – given similarities in functional limitations) a computer program product (as in FIG.4) comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium (64/66), having thereon a computer program comprising program instructions, the computer program being loadable into a processing circuitry [0063-0064] and configured to cause execution of the method according to claim 11 when the computer program is run by the at least one processing circuitry (FIG.4).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JONSSON et al. (US 20210389172 A1) in view of DZIDUCH et al. (US 10600316 B1).
Re claim 5. JONSSON discloses the system (FIG.1) according to claim 1.
However, JONSSON fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, cause the system to:
-determine a position of the door when the probable event that caused the movement of the door occurred.
DZIDUCH teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, (c.1, l.54-60) determining a door position (door open or closed) when a probable event (i.e. burglar alarm event) caused a movement of door (i.e. if door was opened during such event).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of determining a door position during an event of interest to help prevent unwanted access thru a door. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to adopt the door position determination for protecting against unwanted access.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JONSSON et al. (US 20210389172 A1) in view of BEDNAR (US 4711754 A).
Re claim 8. However, JONSSON fails to explicitly disclose:
the system according to according to claim 1, wherein an impact movement energy, causing the movement of the door during the predefined time period, is determined by calculating the surface area under the function describing the movement amplitude in the at least first direction (x, y, z) in relation to the door over time.
BEDNAR teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a determination of impact energy based on a known calculation including a force versus time function and energy calculated from the area under the force versus time function.
The prior art also teaches the known technique of using the calculation as taught by BEDNAR to determine an impact energy. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using integrative calculations as claimed would have yielded predictable results and would have improved the ability to determine excessive impact energy to predict potential maintenance/repair needs of the door system.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JONSSON et al. (US 20210389172 A1) in view of BRUNS et al. (US 20140331557 A1).
Re claim 10. However, JONSSON fails to explicitly disclose:
the system according to claim 1, wherein in the system further comprises:
a motor arranged in the vicinity of the movement sensor, and
the movement sensor is further configured to detect movement and/or vibration of the door caused by frequencies generated by the motor, and in accordance with a determination of a probable event, the processing circuitry is further configured to:
-determine a change in the amplitude of the frequencies generated by the motor to predict maintenance of the door.
BRUNS teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, a motor for controlling movement of door [0020] wherein the motor’s amplitude frequencies [0025, 0030, 0033] generated by such motor operation can be determined such that maintenance for a door can be predicted [0043, 0045].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of placing a motor for operating a door in a vicinity of a sensor to help detect movement or vibration of such motor to determine amplitude changes for frequency to further predict a necessary maintenance for a door (i.e. motor repair). It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to use sensing capabilities of sensor for monitoring frequency issues of motor such that a repair can be scheduled once an event occurs (i.e. damage, impact to door/motor etc.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 12/8/2025