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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a door” in line 2. It is presumed to recite “the door”.
Claims 2-13 recite “Method according to claim…” in line 1. They are presumed to recite “The method
Claim 8 recites “a sensor (26)…the sensor (26)” in lines 3-4. It is presumed to recite “the at least one sensor (26)…the at least one sensor (26)”.
Claim 10 recites “the predetermined open time” in line 3. It is presumed to recite “the predetermined hold open time”.
Claim 13 recites “the door system (12)” in lines 6, 10 and 11. It is presumed to recite “the automatic door system (12)”.
Claim 14 recites “Detection unit for an automatic door system (12)…carry out a method…” in line 1. It is presumed to recite “A detection the automatic door system (12)…carry out the method…”.
Claim 15 recites “System comprising…” in line 1. It is presumed to recite “A system .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and 10-13 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.
Claim 7 recites “…an electromechanical contact sensor (44), in particular an electromechanical safety edge, a button (50), a switch (46), in particular an emergency stop switch, a lever (48), in particular an emergency brake release lever…”. The claim recites a group (e.g., a switch), followed by a comma, and then recites a specific member of that group (e.g., an emergency stop switch). It is unclear if the claim requires the group or the specific member of that group. For prosecution purposes this limitation is interpreted as “…an electromechanical contact sensor (44),
Claim 9 recites “…if an input of the same sensor (26), in particular of an electromechanical contact sensor (44), is received…”. The claim recites a group (e.g., the same sensor), followed by a comma, and then recites a specific member of that group (e.g., an electromechanical contact sensor). It is unclear if the claim requires the group or the specific member of that group. Clarification is requested.
Claim 10 recites “…transmitted to a detection unit (14), in particular by the control unit (22)…”. It is unclear if the claim specifically requires the control unit to transmit the requirements of the claim. Clarification is requested.
Claims 11-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 13 recites “…in particular the warning being an acoustic warning and/or a visual warning…”. It is unclear if the claim requires the group or the specific member of that group. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seeber (WO 2019/210088 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Seeber discloses a method for detecting an obstruction of a door of an automatic door system, the automatic door system (see at least Figure 1, items 20 and 22 | [18] note the overhead door opener system 20 includes a door 22) comprising
a door (see at least Figure 1, item 22),
at least one sensor (see at least Figure 1, items 28 and 26 | [21] note photo light beam units 28, edge sensors 26 and cameras (not labeled) are used to detect obstacles in the path of the door 22), and
a control unit configured to control the motion of the door (see at least Figure 1, item 24b | [21] note door controller 24b causes the door 22 to stop, reverse, open and close),
wherein the method comprises the following steps:
a. receiving information about or determining when the door is in its open state (see at least [21] note when the door 22 is fully open, a limit switch (not labeled) is activated within the door controller 24b),
b. after a predetermined hold open time has elapsed (see at least [21] note the door 22 is configured to close after a set period of time (e.g., via a delay/timer that is activated at the door controller 24b once detected open via the limit switch (not labeled)) and if the door cannot be closed, determining that the door has been obstructed (see at least [35] note during the set period of time/period of delay, and during the closure of the door 22, the safety sensors continue to monitor for safety conditions (e.g., an obstruction) and produce a blocked or obstruction fault signal if a safety condition is detected), and
c. outputting a signal indicating that the door is obstructed (see at least [42] note displaying ObSt (i.e., obstruction)).
Regarding claim 2, Seeber discloses the following further steps: a. after the predetermined hold open time has elapsed, performing a safety check checking for input of the at least one sensor indicating that the door cannot be closed safely, and b. if the safety check yields no input indicating that the door cannot be closed safely, closing the door (see at least [35]).
Regarding claim 5, Seeber discloses the control unit receives an input from the at least one sensor indicating a presence of an object close to or in a passageway of the door and/or indicating a command to open the door, and the control unit opens the door or keeps the door open due to the reception of the input (see at least [35]).
Regarding claim 6, Seeber discloses the at least one sensor is configured to monitor a passageway of the door (see at least [21] | [35]).
Regarding claim 8, Seeber discloses that, if, after the predetermined hold open time has elapsed and the door is being closed, an input of a sensor is received during the closing movement of the door, and the input of the sensor leads to a stop or a reopening of the door, the predetermined hold open time is still regarded as having elapsed (see at least [35] note the delay counter is reset).
Regarding claim 14, Seeber discloses a detection unit for an automatic door system, wherein the detection unit is configured to carry out a method according to claim 1 (see at least Figure 3 | [50]).
Regarding claim 15, Seeber discloses a system comprising the automatic door system with the door (see at least Figure 1, items 20 and 22 | [18] note the overhead door opener system 20 includes a door 22), the at least one sensor (see at least Figure 1, items 28 and 26 | [21] note photo light beam units 28, edge sensors 26 and cameras (not labeled) are used to detect obstacles in the path of the door 22), the control unit configured to control the motion of the door (see at least Figure 1, item 24b | [21] note door controller 24b causes the door 22 to stop, reverse, open and close), and a detection unit (see at least Figure 3 | [50]), wherein the system is configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (see at least [21] | [35] | [42]).
Regarding claim 16, Seeber discloses a computer program product, embodied on a computer readable storage medium and configured so as when executed on a processor to perform operations of the method according to claim 1 (see at least [51]).
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.
Claims 3, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeber (WO 2019/210088 A1) in view of Platt (US 5,284,225 A).
Regarding claim 3, Seeber does not specifically disclose the following further steps: a. after the predetermined hold open time has elapsed, performing a safety check checking for input of the at least one sensor indicating that the door cannot be closed safely, b. if the safety check yields an input indicating that the door cannot be closed safely, determining whether the input has been of the same sensor as an input that has led to opening of the door or to keeping the door open, and c. if the input has been of the same sensor, determining that the door has been obstructed.
It is known to make determinations in different ways. For example, Platt teaches a system that: a. after the predetermined hold open time has elapsed, performing a safety check checking for input of the at least one sensor indicating that the door cannot be closed safely, b. if the safety check yields an input indicating that the door cannot be closed safely, determining whether the input has been of the same sensor as an input that has led to opening of the door or to keeping the door open, and c. if the input has been of the same sensor, determining that the door has been obstructed (see at least col. 1, lines 32-52, note means for repeatedly scanning the first portion of the matrix, a first sensor, for approaching objects/people | col. 1, lines 53-67, note means for repeatedly scanning a second portion of the matrix, a second sensor, for stationary objects | col. 4, lines 22-37, note the door closes after being delayed several seconds, tries to close, and if any movement is detected, the doors stop from closing and the delay timer is reset).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Platt into Seeber. This provides the ability to prevent any damage to a door and a (stationary) person/object beneath the door.
Regarding claim 4, Seeber in view of Platt teach the following further steps: a. after the predetermined hold open time has elapsed, performing a safety check checking for input of the at least one sensor indicating that the door cannot be closed safely, b. if the safety check yields an input indicating that the door cannot be closed safely, determining whether the input has been present continuously for a predetermined confirmation time, and c. if the input has been present continuously for the predetermined confirmation time, determining that the door (18) has been obstructed (see at least col. 1, lines 32-52 of Platt, note means for repeatedly scanning the first portion of the matrix, a first sensor, for approaching objects/people | col. 1, lines 53-67 of Platt, note means for repeatedly scanning a second portion of the matrix, a second sensor, for stationary objects | col. 4, lines 22-37 of Platt, note the door closes after being delayed several seconds, tries to close, and if any movement is detected, the doors stop from closing and the delay timer is reset).
Regarding claim 9, Seeber in view of Platt teach that, if an input of the same sensor, in particular of an electromechanical contact sensor, is received during consecutive closing movements for a predefined number of times greater than one, it is determined that the door is obstructed (see at least col. 1, lines 32-52 of Platt, note means for repeatedly scanning the first portion of the matrix, a first sensor, for approaching objects/people | col. 1, lines 53-67 of Platt, note means for repeatedly scanning a second portion of the matrix, a second sensor, for stationary objects | col. 4, lines 22-37 of Platt, note the door closes after being delayed several seconds, tries to close, and if any movement is detected, the doors stop from closing and the delay timer is reset).
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeber (WO 2019/210088 A1) in view of Leivenzon (US 2013/0042530 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Seeber does not specifically disclose the at least one sensor is a photocell, an infrared sensor, a laser scanner, a light curtain, a radar, an electromechanical contact sensor, in particular an electromechanical safety edge, a button, a switch, in particular an emergency stop switch, a lever, in particular an emergency brake release lever, and/or an interface for receiving a signal indicating an open or closed state of another door.
It is known to control a door in different ways. For example, Leivenzon teaches a door system wherein at least one sensor is a photocell, an infrared sensor, a laser scanner, a light curtain, a radar, an electromechanical contact sensor, in particular an electromechanical safety edge, a button, a switch, in particular an emergency stop switch, a lever, in particular an emergency brake release lever, and/or an interface for receiving a signal indicating an open or closed state of another door (see at least the abstract | Figures 1-3, items 9, 11, 17 and 29).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Leivenzon into Seeber. This provides a known alternative sensor that can be used in place of, or in addition to, Seeber’s sensor while providing predictable results.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeber (WO 2019/210088 A1) in view of Schmidt (US 2019/0330026 A)1
Regarding claim 10, Seeber does not specifically disclose a status whether the door is in its open or closed state, a lapse of the predetermined open time, inputs of the at least one sensor and/or a result of a safety check are transmitted to a detection unit, in particular by the control unit, wherein the detection unit determines whether the door is obstructed.
It is known to make determinations in different ways. For example, Schmidt teaches a system where a status whether the door is in its open or closed state, a lapse of the predetermined open time, inputs of the at least one sensor and/or a result of a safety check are transmitted to a detection unit, in particular by the control unit, wherein the detection unit determines whether the door is obstructed (see at least [0046-0047] note control of the door, due to an obstruction, can be performed locally or remotely (e.g., in the cloud)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Schmidt into Seeber. This provides a known alternative processing location that can be used in place of, or in addition to, Seeber’s processing location while providing predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Seeber in view of Schmidt teach that the detection unit is part of the control unit or is separate from the control unit (see at least [0046-0047] of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 12, Seeber in view of Schmidt teach that the detection unit is a server located remotely from the automatic door system (see at least [0046-0047] of Schmidt).
Regarding claim 13, Seeber in view Schmidt teach that, if it has been determined that the door is obstructed, at least one of the following measures is taken by the control unit and/or the detection unit: -a warning is outputted at the door, in particular the warning being an acoustic warning and/or a visual warning, -a notification is sent to a supervisor of an owner of the door system, -a visual indication is displayed in a control interface for the automatic door system, -a maintenance instruction is sent to a technician of the owner or a manufacturer of the door system , and/or -a notification is sent to the manufacturer of the door system (see at least [42] of Seeber).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights