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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/993,284, filed 1/10/2025.
Claims 1-9 and the specification, including abstract, were amended in the preliminary amendment filed.
Claims 1-9 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/10/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 2-3 and 5 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.
In claim 2, it is not clear how the conductor can be in a centre column when claim 1 defines the conductors on the door leaf elements rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In claim 3, line 3, “the rotary feed-through” has no antecedent basis and will be examined as depending from claim 2.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guangzhou(CN108678620; cited on IDS filed) in view of Dorma(DE102011053210; cited on IDS filed) in view of Dorma(DE102011053210; cited on IDS filed).
Guangzhou discloses a revolving door(see Fig. 1) having a turnstile(12, see Fig. 1) that is arranged between opposite drum elements(on sides of door, see Fig. 1), and having a ceiling assembly(above 11, see Fig. 1) which is connected to the drum elements(see Fig. 1) at the top and on which the turnstile(see Fig. 1) is rotatably mounted(the door is a revolving door and revolves around 11), wherein the turnstile has door leaf elements(12), wherein at least one of the door leaf elements(12) has a display(2) for displaying information(the term “display” allows for the displaying of information meeting the claim limitation), wherein electrical conductors are arranged on the door leaf elements(12), by means of which conductors the display is electrically contacted(see para. [0027]).
Guangzhou lacks the electrical conductors being a foil.
Dorma discloses a glass door having a display area with an electrical foil connection(see para. [0014]), interaction between the user and display is provided(see para. [0011]), wherein the door can be opened automatically with interaction of the display.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the electrical connection of Guangzhou with an electrical foil connection of Dorma given that KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. __ (2006) has found that the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 4, Guangzhou and Dorma disclose the revolving door of claim 1, wherein the door leaf elements(11) are each formed from at least one or two or more parallel glass plates(23, see para. [0028).
Regarding claim 5, Guangzhou and Dorma disclose the revolving door according to claim 4, wherein the display(2) is arranged on the glass plate(see Figs. 1 and 3) such that the display(2) is enclosed by the transparent glass surface of the glass plate(see Figs. 1 and 3 where the glass plate in combination with another glass plate enclose the display meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Guangzhou and Dorma disclose the revolving door according to claim, but lacks the display stopped and/or changed.
It would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to have allowed the control of Dorma to change the speed of the door opening in order to have allowed for better interaction of the door with the user given the intended use of the conductor and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Guangzhou and Dorma disclose the revolving door according to claim 1 wherein the door leaf elements(12) are designed as all-glass door leafs(see para. [0028]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guangzhou and Dorma, as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Heise(4,530,183; cited on PTO892) and Liu(CN105370169; cited on IDS filed).
Guangzhou and Dorma disclose the revolving door according to claim 1, but lack the specific placement and attachment of the conductors.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the placement of the conductors in the door leaf and the attachment thereof(see page 2, lines 15-21)
The use of a control mechanism in the brush at an edge of a revolving door is well known in the art(see 63 of Heise).
The use of a control mechanism in a center column of a revolving door is well known in the art(see 2 of Liu).
Therefore, the specific placement of the conductors and attachment thereof is considered a feature best determined be a skilled artisan given the intended use of the conductor and design requirements thereof.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guangzhou and Dorma, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malm(2,192,196; cited on PTO 892)
Guangzhou and Dorma disclose the revolving door according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the door leaf elements(12) has at least two glass plates(see para[ [0028]) arranged parallel to one another(see Fig. 3), wherein the display (114) is configured between the glass plates(see Fig. 3), in particular wherein the glass plates are connected to one another but lacks the specific connection being a film.
Malm discloses a glass with multiple panes connected via a composite film(combination of B and D considered a composite film, see Figs.)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the door leaf elements of Guangzhou and Dorma with a laminated structure, as disclosed by Malm, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided safety the door to help prevent shattering of the glass given the intended use of the door and design requirements thereof. The placement of the display with respect to the film is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the door and design requirements thereof.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guangzhou and Dorma, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guangzhou(CN108597379; cited on IDS filed).
Guangzhou and Dorma disclose the revolving door according to claim 1, but lack a display on the drum elements.
Guangzhou’379 discloses a revolving door having a display on the drum elements(2, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the revolving door of Guangzhou and Dorma with a display on the drum elements, as disclosed by Guangzhou’379, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for the display of information to a used of the door given the intended use of the door and design requirements thereof.
Prior Art
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 BETH A. AUBREY whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights