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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the textual labels in figures 3 and 4 are not clear. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,146,360. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader claims in the continuation application are obvious in view of the narrow claims already granted in the parent patent. A broader claim in a continuation is considered obvious over the narrow version of the already patented claims because the parent case claims contain all the elements of the continuation claims plus additional narrowing limitations, the continuation claims are viewed as an obvious broadening of what was already patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al (US Patent 9816306), of record and Übelein et al (US Patent 7746012), of record.
Applicant’s parent application includes an amendment (6/25/24) which was added to overcome a specific combination of prior art references, removing the narrowing language means the claims in the continuation application read directly on that same prior art combination again.
Claim 1, Ikeda et al teaches a control circuit for an opening/closing member (sliding door) comprising: A power source 2; a motor 40 for outputting power to sliding door (col. 1 line 3); a motor driving circuit comprising an inverter circuit 30; a plurality of position detectors U51/V52/W53; and a shunt resistor 20 connected between battery 2 and inverter 30, wherein the control circuit is connected between battery 2 and motor 40.
Ikeda et al does not specifically teach the rotational angle of the motor being determined using the voltage/current through the shunt resistor.
However, Übelein et al teaches a door or window operating system comprising a control device 110 for operating doors 21/22; a drive 100 that includes a motor 120; a drive 200 that includes motor 220; a shunt resistor 116 used as a rotational angle sensor; and a second rotational angle sensor 115, wherein control device 110 determines the rotational position of motor 220 based on the voltage/current through shunt resistor 116.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a shunt resistor to determine the rotational angle/speed of a motor, since as described by Übelein et al in col. 5 lines 44-56, the type of the sensor used in a drive depends on the type of installation of the door mechanism.
Claim 2, the desired position (connected to the negative node of the power source and the negative node of the inverter) of shunt resistor 20 is not given any patentable weight, since as described by Ikeda et al and applicant the shunt resistor performs the same function. Übelein et al also describes the use of shunt resistor 116 connected to the control circuit and power.
Claim 3, Ikeda et al describes controller 16 outputting control commands to inverter 30 based on information from shunt resistor 20. Übelein et al describes a shunt resistor is commonly used to determine the rotational position of a motor and said position is used in a closed loop to control the motor drive.
Claim 4, Ikeda et al describes catching determination part 15 outputting whether or not the sliding door has encountered an obstruction, wherein the obstruction is detected based on the output from shunt resistor as described in fig. 1 and corresponding description.
Claim 5, Ikeda et al also describes position sensors 51-53 outputting position feedback to controller 16 which also receives the output from catching determination part 15.
Claim 6, Ikeda et al describes operation switch 3 for activating/deactivating the movement of the sliding door and controller 16 for outputted a change in motor operation (including braking) based on information from shunt resistor 20 and catching determination part 15 (see for example col. 7 lines 18-67 and col. 8 lines 1-15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. New documents have been listed in the attached PTO-892 form; these documents teach other motor control systems for operating a sliding door.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights