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 .
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 3-5 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.
Claims 3 and 4 recite a sensor that senses obstructions in the doorframe. It is unclear what obstruction the sensor is sensing in the doorframe. It is understood from the specs and drawings that the sensor senses obstructions between the doorframe, rather than in the door frame. Examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Claim 5 is rejected due to its dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190128022 to Markway in view of US 20180245384 to Shipley.
Regarding claim 1, Markway discloses:
An electromechanical door system (fig 1), comprising: a door (D) including a latch assembly (L, see figs 19-20) configured to latch the door to a door frame (not shown) to maintain the door in a closed position and to unlatch to allow the door to open to an opened position (see paragraph 0050); a foot pedal (10) operatively connected to contact a sensor (132); and a motor (not shown, see paragraph 0050) operatively connected to the latch assembly; and a microcontroller (134) operatively connected to the sensor and the motor, wherein the microcontroller includes machine readable instructions to actuate the motor to unlatch the latch assembly upon actuation of the foot pedal and contact with the sensor (paragraph 0050).
Markway does not explicitly disclose: the latch assembly including a pair of latch members at opposed ends of the door; and a pair of motors, each motor operatively connected to a respective one of the pair of latch members.
However, Shipley teaches that it is well known in the art for a latch assembly to include a pair of latch members (26) at opposed ends of the door (fig 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shipley into Markway at least because doing so would provide additional security. The combination of Shipley into Markway would add a motor for each latch bolt to maintain control of the latch bolt as Markway teaches.
Regarding claim 7, Markway in view of Shipley discloses:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 1, wherein each latch member is operatively connected to a rack (28, Shipley), the rack including an upper rack (upper rack in fig 2) and a lower rack (lower rack in fig 2), wherein each rack is configured to move parallel to a hinge line (hinge line of 44), and wherein each rack is meshed with a pinion gear (20) for synchronized actuation of each latch member.
Regarding claim 12, Markway in view of Shipley discloses:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 7, further comprising a linkage operatively connecting the foot pedal to the pinion gear (as per the combination of Shipley and Markway, the foot pedal would be connected to the pinion gear via 46).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190128022 to Markway in view of US 20180245384 to Shipley, and in further view of US 4994722 to Dolan.
Regarding claim 3, Markway in view of Shipley discloses:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 3, wherein the sensor is a first sensor (132).
Markway in view of Shipley does not explicitly disclose: and further comprising at least one additional sensor disposed on a doorframe configured to sense an obstruction in the doorframe.
However, Dolan teaches that it is well known in the art for a sensor (28) to be disposed on a doorframe (26) configured to sense an obstruction in the doorframe (see col 1 lines 50-56. The sensor detects the passenger in obstructing in the lavatory). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dolan into Markway in view of Shipley at least because doing so would provide additional control over the latching mechanism to prevent unwanted situations.
Regarding claim 4, Markway in view of Shipley and Dolan discloses:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 3, wherein the machine readable instructions are configured to cause the microcontroller to perform a method, the method including; actuating the at least one motor of the latch assembly to unlatch the door to move the door to an open position; holding the door in the open position for a threshold amount of time; sensing, after the threshold amount of time, if an obstruction is present in the door frame; and if no obstruction is present in the door frame, releasing the door from the open position and actuating the at least one motor of the latch assembly to move the door in the latched position; or if an obstruction is present in the door frame, maintaining the door in the open position until the obstruction is no longer present (see col 1 lines 50-56 of Dolan).
Regarding claim 5, Markway in view of Shipley and Dolan discloses:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 4, wherein the method further comprises, actuating the at least one motor of the latch assembly upon receipt of a user input (foot of user, see paragraph 0050 of Markway).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190128022 to Markway in view of US 20180245384 to Shipley, and in further view of GB 2089422 to Ward.
Regarding claim 8, Markway in view of Shipley does not explicitly disclose:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 1, further comprising at least one removable access panel on the door positioned for at least one of: servicing the latch assembly or a rack and gear assembly, or for an emergency opening of the door.
However, Ward teaches a door system comprising at least one removable access panel on the door positioned for at least one of: servicing the latch assembly (see page 2, lines 60-63). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ward into Markway in view of Shipley at least because doing so would increase safety of the latch mechanism from external factors.
Claim 17 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190128022 to Markway in view of US 20180245384 to Shipley, and in further view of US 20110271484 to Irwin.
Regarding claim 9, Markway in view of Shipley does not explicitly disclose:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 1, further comprising: the door frame; and set of hinges operatively connecting the door to the door frame.
Irwin however teaches that it is well known in the art for: the door frame (1); and set of hinges operatively connecting the door to the door frame (see fig 1.1 and paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Irwin into Markway in view of Shipley at least because doing so would provide added control and smoother operation of the door.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190128022 to Markway in view of US 20180245384 to Shipley, and in further view of US 20110271484 to Irwin, and in further view of US 20050028946 to Weishar.
Regarding claim 10, Markway in view of Shipley and Irwin discloses:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 9, further comprising at least one helical spring (64, Irwin) disposed on the set of hinges, wherein the at least one helical spring is configured to exert a resultant spring force on the door to open the door in the unlatched position (see paragraph 0002, Irwin).
Markway in view of Shipley and Irwin does not explicitly disclose: and a gas spring operatively connected between the door and the door frame, wherein the at least one helical spring and the gas spring are configured to exert a resultant spring force on the door to open the door in the unlatched position. However, Weishar teaches that it is well known in the art for: a gas spring (82) operatively connected between the door and the door frame (see fig 12a), wherein the at least one helical spring and the gas spring are configured to exert a resultant spring force on the door to open the door in the unlatched position (see paragraph 0044). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Weishar into Markway in view of Shipley and Irwin at least because doing so would provide added control over the hinges for easier operation of the door.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190128022 to Markway in view of US 20180245384 to Shipley, and in further view of US 20050028946 to Weishar.
Regarding claim 11, Markway in view of Shipley does not explicitly disclose:
The electromechanical door as recited in claim 1, wherein the door includes a pair of door panels hingedly connected to one another along a hinge line.
However, Weishar teaches that it is well known in the art for: the door includes a pair of door panels (52, 58) hingedly connected to one another along a hinge line (center line where 52 and 58 meet as seen in fig 1a and 1c). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the door panels as taught by Weishar into the assembly of Markway in view of Shipley at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a door. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190128022 to Markway in view of US 20180245384 to Shipley, and in further view of US 20140333073 to Bartos.
Regarding claim 13, Markway in view of Shipley does not explicitly disclose:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 7, wherein the latch assembly further comprising a compression spring disposed around each latch member between the rack and a tip of latch member configured to bias each latch member in the latched position.
However, Bartos teaches that it is well known in the art for: latch assembly (30,32) further comprising a compression spring (62,64) disposed around each latch member between the rack and a tip of latch member configured to bias each latch member in the latched position (see fig 3 and paragraph 0095). Note that per the combination, the assembly of Markway in view of Shipley is configured to dispose a spring between the rack and a tip of latch member. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bartos into Markway in view of Shipley at least because doing so would provide added safety by biasing the latch to the extended position, preventing inadvertent mispositioning of the latch members.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190128022 to Markway in view of US 20180245384 to Shipley, and in further view of JP 2000320196 to Kuroshima.
Regarding claim 14, Markway in view of Shipley does not explicitly disclose:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 1, wherein the foot pedal is a first foot pedal on an exterior surface of the door, and further comprising a second foot pedal on an interior surface of the door.
However, Kuroshima teaches that it is well known in the art for: the foot pedal is a first foot pedal (right 8 as seen in fig 2), and further including a second foot pedal (left 8 as seen in fig 2), wherein the first foot pedal is an exterior foot pedal, wherein the second foot pedal is an interior foot pedal (fig 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuroshima into Markway in view of Shipley at least because doing so would provide added control of the system by providing interior and exterior control.
Regarding claim 15, Markway in view of Shipley and Kuroshima discloses:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 14, wherein the first and second foot pedals are foldably connected to move between a folded position (when 8 is folded so both hooks 10 are connected) and an unfolded position (fig 2), wherein the folded position, actuation of the latch assembly is prohibited (when 8 is folded, user cannot apply a force on 8, Kuroshima) and wherein in the unfolded position, actuation of the latch assembly is permitted (figs 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuroshima into Markway in view of Shipley at least because doing so would provide added safety by removing the pedal from obstructing movement when not in use and secure it in desired positions.
Regarding claim 16, Markway in view of Shipley discloses:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 1, further comprising a foot actuated door lock (see fig 1 and 21, Markway) disposed on an interior surface of the door.
Markway in view of Shipley does not explicitly disclose: the foot actuated door lock slidable between a locked position and an unlocked position, wherein the locked position restricts movement of the foot pedal and wherein the unlocked position permits movement of the foot pedal.
However, Kuroshima teaches that it is well known in the art for: the foot actuated door lock slidable between a locked position (when 10 slides on to top 10 to fold 8) and an unlocked position (fig 2), wherein the locked position restricts movement of the foot pedal (in the folded position, 8 is restricted) and wherein the unlocked position permits movement of the foot pedal (figs 1-3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuroshima into Markway in view of Shipley at least because doing so would provide added safety by folding and maintaining the folded position of the pedal, preventing unwanted unfolding and actuation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the 112 rejection should not apply because anyone reading would understand “an obstruction in the door frame” as a user entering the door, Examiner respectfully disagreed. The plain English meaning of “in the door frame” means the internal portion of the doorframe, that is often composed of wood. A person walking would only be sensed by the sensors if they were to walk past the door opening, and not through the door frame, as is being claimed. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that there is not enough disclosed about the microcontroller, Examiner notes that a microcontroller actuating a motor is well known in the art, and the details of the latching/unlatching are not required to be disclosed for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the function. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/Y.S./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights