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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements of 02/12/2025 and 04/09/2025 have been received and reviewed. The crossed out references are references that could not be found. Please confirm the reference numbers.
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 recites 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190128022 to Markway.
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); and a foot pedal (10) operatively connected to contact a sensor (132); and at least one motor (not shown, see paragraph 0050) operatively connected the latch assembly.
Regarding claim 2, Markway discloses:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 2, further comprising, a microcontroller (134) operatively connected to the sensor, wherein the microcontroller includes machine readable instructions to actuate the at least one motor to unlatch the latch assembly upon actuation of the foot pedal and contact with the sensor (paragraph 0050).
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190128022 to Markway in view of US 4994722 to Dolan.
Regarding claim 3, Markway discloses:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 3, wherein the sensor is a first sensor (132).
Markway 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 at least because doing so would provide additional control over the latching mechanism to prevent unwanted situations.
Regarding claim 4, Markway in view of 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 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) 6-7 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 6, Markway does not explicitly disclose:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 2, wherein the latch assembly includes a pair of latch members at opposed ends of the door.
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.
Regarding claim 7, Markway in view of Shipley discloses:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 6, 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190128022 to Markway in view of GB 2089422 to Ward.
Regarding claim 8, Markway does not explicitly disclose:
The electromechanical door system as recited in claim 2, 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 at least because doing so would increase safety of the latch mechanism from external factors.
Conclusion
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