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 .
This is a non-final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 13-32 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claims 1-12 are canceled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/23/2025 has been considered by examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: “An system” should recite “A system” for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
mechanical detection device in claim 13, 14, 16-18, 21-22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a mechanical detection device:
As shown in particular in FIG. 2, the detection device 3 firstly comprises a housing 30, fixed to the leaf by any appropriate means. This housing firstly supports a mechanical detection device, of the push-button type [¶ 98]
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13, 18-24, 26, and 28-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-11, 15 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12473773. Claim 13 of an access door of the instant application is compared to claim 1, 15 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12473773. Although claim 13 at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 13 of 19/367,531 contains a broader independent claims than claim 1, 15 and 10 of the US Patent No: 12473773 as shown below in the table.
Instant Application: 19/367,531
Reference US Patent No: 12473773
13. (New) An access door for a transport vehicle, the access door comprising:a frame delimiting an opening;at least one leaf movable between an open position and a closed position;a detection device comprising:a mechanical detection device configured to detect pressure applied to the detection device; anda contactless sensor configured to detect a presence in a vicinity of the detection device;a control circuit comprising a diagnostic unit and a control unit configured to control a movement of the at least one leaf;
1. An access door, comprising:a frame delimiting an opening;at least one leaf movable between an open position, corresponding to a free passage through the opening, and a closed position, wherein the passage through the opening is blocked;a detection device that includes a mechanical device configured to detect pressure on the mechanical device and a contactless sensor configured to detect a presence in a vicinity of the detection device, wherein the detection device is electrically coupled to a control unit configured to control movement of the at least one leaf based on the pressure that is detected or the presence that is detected; anda control circuit electrically coupled to the detection device, wherein the control circuit is configured to:receive information from the detection device; anddistinguish a first operational case associated with the detection device from a second operational case associated with the detection device based on the information, wherein, in the first operational case, the mechanical device has malfunctioned, and wherein, in the second operational case, the contactless sensor is used more than the mechanical device.
and a transfer circuit configured to transfer a first item of information representative of an activation state of the mechanical detection device and a second item of information representative of an activation state of the contactless sensor, wherein the transfer circuit is configured to transfer the first item of information and the second item of information from the detection device to the control circuit,
15. The door according to claim 1, wherein the information comprises a first item of information representative of an activation state of the mechanical device and a second item of information representative of an activation state of the contactless sensor, the door further comprising:the one or more transfer lines configured to transfer first item of information and the second item of information from the detection device toward the control circuit.
wherein each of the first item of information and the second item of information comprise a respective active value and a respective inactive value, and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value and the second item of information has an inactive value.
14. The door of claim 15, wherein the detection device and the control circuit are configured to receive the first and second items of information, the control circuit configured to identify the malfunction of the contactless sensor responsive to the first and second items of information indicating activation of the mechanical device but an absence of activation of the contactless sensor.
This is a non-provisional nonstatutory double patenting (anticipatory type) rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have been patented. Remaining claims 18-24, 26, and 28-30 of an access door of the instant application is compared to claim 6-11, 15 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12473773. Although claim 18-24, 26, and 28-30 at issue are not identical to 6-11, 15 and 17, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 18-24, 26, and 28-30 of 19/367,531 contains broader independent claims than claims 1, 15, 10 18-24, 26, and 28-30 of the US Patent No: 12473773 as shown below in the table.
Instant Application: 19/367,531
Reference US Patent No: 12473773
18. (New) The access door of claim 13, wherein the transfer circuit comprises a single transfer line to convey a signal comprising the first item of information and the second item of information from the detection device towards both the control unit and the diagnostic unit.
6. (Currently Amended) The door according to claim 15, in which the one or more transfer lines comprise a single transfer line configured to convey a single electrical signal carrying both the first item of information and the second item of information from the detection device towards the control circuit.
19. (New) The access door of claim 18, wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a first signature comprising a first pattern and a second signature comprising a second pattern based on the signal, wherein the first signature corresponds to the active value of the first item of information, and wherein the second signature corresponds to the active value of the second item of information.
7. (Currently Amended) The door according to claim 6, wherein the control circuit is configured to identify different signatures carried by the single electrical signal with each of the signatures corresponding to a different one of the first and second items of information.
20. (New) The access door of claim 13, wherein the control circuit further comprises a malfunction module, and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to transmit information to the malfunction module based on the identified malfunction of the contactless sensor.
8. (Currently Amended) The door according to claim 1, further comprising a malfunction module configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor.
21. (New) The access door of claim 13, wherein the control circuit further comprises a memory module, and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to supply the memory module with occurrences relating to an activation of the contactless sensor accompanied by an absence of activation of the mechanical detection device.
9. (Currently Amended) The door according to claim 1, further comprising a memory module, the control circuit configured to supply the memory module with occurrences relating to activation of the contactless sensor accompanied by an absence of activation of the mechanical device.
22. (New) The access door of claim 13, wherein the first item of information, representativeof the activation state of the mechanical detection device, as well as the second item of information, representative of the activation state of the contactless sensor, are transferred from the detection device to both the diagnostic unit and the control unit; andwherein the malfunction of the contactless sensor is identified based on a determination that the mechanical detection device activated and the contactless sensor did not activate.
10. (Currently Amended) The door of claim 15, wherein the detection device and the control circuit are configured to receive the first and second items of information, the control circuit configured to identify the malfunction of the contactless sensor responsive to the first and second items of information indicating activation of the mechanical device but an absence of activation of the contactless sensor.
23. (New) The access door of claim 13, wherein the control circuit is configured to alert an operator upon determining that a predetermined number of identified malfunctions of the contactless sensor has occurred.
11. (Currently Amended) The door according to claim 1, wherein the detection device is configured to generate an alert to an operator responsive to a predetermined number of malfunctions of the contactless sensor.
24. (New) The access door of claim 13, wherein the control circuit is configured to determine a variation, as a function of time, in a ratio of a number of activations of the contactless sensor and a number of activations of the mechanical detection device.
17. (New) The door according to claim 16, wherein the control circuit is further configured to:determine a variation in the percentage of mechanical activation of the mechanical device across the time domain, and wherein distinguishing the first operational case from the second operational case is further based on the determined variation.
26. (New) An access door for a transport vehicle, the access door comprising:a frame delimiting an opening;at least one leaf movable between an open position and a closed position;a detection device comprising:a mechanical detection device configured to detect pressure applied to the detection device; anda contactless sensor configured to detect a presence in a vicinity of the detection device;a control circuit comprising a diagnostic unit and a control unit configured to control a movement of the at least one leaf; and
1. An access door, comprising:a frame delimiting an opening;at least one leaf movable between an open position, corresponding to a free passage through the opening, and a closed position, wherein the passage through the opening is blocked;a detection device that includes a mechanical device configured to detect pressure on the mechanical device and a contactless sensor configured to detect a presence in a vicinity of the detection device, wherein the detection device is electrically coupled to a control unit configured to control movement of the at least one leaf based on the pressure that is detected or the presence that is detected; anda control circuit electrically coupled to the detection device, wherein the control circuit is configured to:receive information from the detection device; anddistinguish a first operational case associated with the detection device from a second operational case associated with the detection device based on the information, wherein, in the first operational case, the mechanical device has malfunctioned, and wherein, in the second operational case, the contactless sensor is used more than the mechanical device.
a transfer circuit configured to transfer a first item of information and a second item of information from the detection device to the control circuit, the first item of information representative of activation of the mechanical detection device and the second item of information representative of activation of the contactless sensor,
15. The door according to claim 1, wherein the information comprises a first item of information representative of an activation state of the mechanical device and a second item of information representative of an activation state of the contactless sensor, the door further comprising:the one or more transfer lines configured to transfer first item of information and the second item of information from the detection device toward the control circuit.
wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value indicative of the mechanical detection device being activated and the second item of information has an inactive value indicative of the contactless sensor being deactivated.
10. The door of claim 15, wherein the detection device and the control circuit are configured to receive the first and second items of information, the control circuit configured to identify the malfunction of the contactless sensor responsive to the first and second items of information indicating activation of the mechanical device but an absence of activation of the contactless sensor.
28. (New) The access door of claim 26, wherein the control circuit is configured to alert an operator upon determining that a predetermined number of identified malfunctions of the contactless sensor has occurred.
11. (Currently Amended) The door according to claim 1, wherein the detection device is configured to generate an alert to an operator responsive to a predetermined number of malfunctions of the contactless sensor.
29. (New) The access door of claim 26, wherein the control circuit is configured to determine a variation, as a function of time, in a ratio of a number of activations of the contactless sensor and a number of activations of the mechanical detection device, and wherein the control circuit is configured to determine a malfunction of the mechanical detection device based on the determined variation in the ratio.
17. (New) The door according to claim 16, wherein the control circuit is further configured to:determine a variation in the percentage of mechanical activation of the mechanical device across the time domain, and wherein distinguishing the first operational case from the second operational case is further based on the determined variation.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13-14, 16-17, 20-23, 24-29 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilflinger et al. (EP3882104A1) (Machine Translation Attached) in view of Dreyer (US 20200024885 A1) .
Regarding Claim 13, Wilflinger teaches, an access door for a transport vehicle (Fig. 1 depicts at least one door 210, see at least, ¶1, Wilflinger), the access door comprising: a frame delimiting an opening (Fig. 3 depicts a door frame 310, see at least, ¶37, Wilflinger); at least one leaf movable between an open position and a closed position (Fig. 3 depicts an outer surface of a door leaf of the door 210 that opens to let people in and the door must move to a closed position, see at least, ¶37, Wilflinger); a detection device comprising: a mechanical detection device configured to detect pressure applied to the detection device; and a contactless sensor configured to detect a presence in a vicinity of the detection device (Fig. 3 depicts detection device is the button unit 100, the mechanical device is the first sensor device 110, the contactless sensor is the contactless sensor device 115, see at least, ¶22, Wilflinger); a control circuit comprising a diagnostic unit and a control unit configured to control a movement of the at least one leaf (Fig. 2 depicts door opening actuator 220 which is interpreted as the control circuit, see at least, ¶30, Wilflinger); and a transfer circuit configured to transfer a first item of information representative of an activation state of the mechanical detection device and a second item of information representative of an activation state of the contactless sensor, wherein the transfer circuit is configured to transfer the first item of information and the second item of information from the detection device to the control circuit (Fig.2: first sensor 110 and contactless sensor 115 have arrows that indicate transfer of information which must utilize a circuit to send opening signals with contain first and second items of information to the door opening actuator 220 which is interpreted as the control circuit, see at least, ¶30, Wilflinger), wherein each of the first item of information and the second item of information comprise a respective active value and a respective inactive value, and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value and the second item of information has an inactive value.
Wilflinger does not explicitly teach a diagnostic unit and wherein each of the first item of information and the second item of information comprise a respective active value and a respective inactive value, and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value and the second item of information has an inactive value.
Dryer, directed to a door operator system teaches, a diagnostic unit and wherein each of the first item of information and the second item of information comprise a respective active value and a respective inactive value, and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value and the second item of information has an inactive value (The supervise unit 4 is a diagnostic unit that analyzes the sequence of activation and presence data to identify conflicting data in the sequence for example a conflicting sequence of activation data and presence data could be inner activation data directly followed by outer activation data (first item of information having an active value) without presence data from the presence sensor 8 (second item of information having an inactive value) in could indicate that the presence sensors 8 are broken in some way, see at least, ¶109, Dryer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Wilflinger to incorporate the teachings of Dryer which teaches a diagnostic unit and wherein each of the first item of information and the second item of information comprise a respective active value and a respective inactive value, and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value and the second item of information has an inactive value since they are both related to sensor activated doors and incorporation of the teachings of Dryer would increase the reliability and reduce the cost of maintaining the of the overall system identifying the source of door malfunction and reduce the cost to service the door in case of sensor malfunction.
Regarding Claim 26, Wilflinger teaches, an access door for a transport vehicle (Fig. 1 depicts at least one door 210, see at least, ¶1, Wilflinger), the access door comprising: a frame delimiting an opening (Fig. 3 depicts a door frame 310, see at least, ¶37, Wilflinger); at least one leaf movable between an open position and a closed position (Fig. 3 depicts an outer surface of a door leaf of the door 210 that opens to let people in and the door must also move to a closed position, see at least, ¶37, Wilflinger); a detection device comprising: a mechanical detection device configured to detect pressure applied to the detection device; and a contactless sensor configured to detect a presence in a vicinity of the detection device (Fig. 3 depicts detection device is the button unit 100, the mechanical device is the first sensor device 110, the contactless sensor is the contactless sensor device 115, see at least, ¶22, Wilflinger); a control circuit comprising a diagnostic unit and a control unit configured to control a movement of the at least one leaf (Fig. 2 depicts door opening actuator 220 which is interpreted as the control circuit, see at least, ¶30, Wilflinger); and a transfer circuit configured to transfer a first item of information and a second item of information from the detection device to the control circuit, the first item of information representative of activation of the mechanical detection device and the second item of information representative of activation of the contactless sensor (Fig.2: first sensor 110 and contactless sensor 115 have arrows that indicate transfer of information which must utilize a circuit to send opening signals with contain first and second items of information to the door opening actuator 220 which is interpreted as the control circuit, see at least, ¶30, Wilflinger), wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value indicative of the mechanical detection device being activated and the second item of information has an inactive value indicative of the contactless sensor being deactivated.
Wilflinger does not explicitly teach a diagnostic unit and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value indicative of the mechanical detection device being activated and the second item of information has an inactive value indicative of the contactless sensor being deactivated.
Dryer, directed to a door operator system teaches, a diagnostic unit and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value indicative of the mechanical detection device being activated and the second item of information has an inactive value indicative of the contactless sensor being deactivated (The supervise unit 4 is a diagnostic unit that analyzes the sequence of activation and presence data to identify conflicting data in the sequence for example a conflicting sequence of activation data and presence data could be inner activation data directly followed by outer activation data (first item of information having an active value) without presence data from the presence sensor 8 (second item of information having an inactive value) in could indicate that the presence sensors 8 are broken in some way, see at least, ¶109, Dryer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Wilflinger to incorporate the teachings of Dryer which teaches , a diagnostic unit and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value indicative of the mechanical detection device being activated and the second item of information has an inactive value indicative of the contactless sensor being deactivated since they are both related to sensor activated doors and incorporation of the teachings of Dryer would increase the reliability and reduce the cost of maintaining the of the overall system identifying the source of door malfunction and reduce the cost to service the door in case of sensor malfunction.
Regarding Claim 30, Wilflinger teaches, an system for an access door of a transport vehicle (Fig. 1 depicts at least one door 210, see at least, ¶1, Wilflinger), the system comprising: a detection device comprising: a mechanical detection device configured to detect pressure applied to the detection device; and a contactless sensor configured to detect a presence in a vicinity of the detection device (Fig. 3 depicts detection device is the button unit 100, the mechanical device is the first sensor device 110, the contactless sensor is the contactless sensor device 115, see at least, ¶22, Wilflinger); a control circuit comprising a diagnostic unit and a control unit configured to control a movement of at least one leaf (Fig. 2 depicts door opening actuator 220 which is interpreted as the control circuit, see at least, ¶30, Wilflinger); and a transfer circuit configured to transfer a first item of information and a second item of information from the detection device to the control circuit, the first item of information representative of activation of the mechanical detection device and the second item of information representative of activation of the contactless sensor (Fig.2: first sensor 110 and contactless sensor 115 have arrows that indicate transfer of information which must utilize a circuit to send opening signals with contain first and second items of information to the door opening actuator 220 which is interpreted as the control circuit, see at least, ¶30, Wilflinger), wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value indicative of the mechanical detection device being activated and the second item of information has an inactive value indicative of the contactless sensor being deactivated.
Wilflinger does not explicitly teach a diagnostic unit and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value indicative of the mechanical detection device being activated and the second item of information has an inactive value indicative of the contactless sensor being deactivated.
Dryer, directed to a door operator system teaches, a diagnostic unit and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value indicative of the mechanical detection device being activated and the second item of information has an inactive value indicative of the contactless sensor being deactivated (The supervise unit 4 is a diagnostic unit that analyzes the sequence of activation and presence data to identify conflicting data in the sequence for example a conflicting sequence of activation data and presence data could be inner activation data directly followed by outer activation data (first item of information having an active value) without presence data from the presence sensor 8 (second item of information having an inactive value) in could indicate that the presence sensors 8 are broken in some way, see at least, ¶109, Dryer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Wilflinger to incorporate the teachings of Dryer which teaches a diagnostic unit and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a malfunction of the contactless sensor when the first item of information has an active value indicative of the mechanical detection device being activated and the second item of information has an inactive value indicative of the contactless sensor being deactivated since they are both related to sensor activated doors and incorporation of the teachings of Dryer would increase the reliability and reduce the cost of maintaining the of the overall system identifying the source of door malfunction and reduce the cost to service the door in case of sensor malfunction.
Regarding Claim 14 and 31, Wilflinger in view of Dryer teaches,
The access door of claim 13 (re-claim 14) and the system of claim 30 wherein the transfer circuit comprises: a first transfer line to convey a first signal comprising the first item of information representative of the activation state of the mechanical detection device from the detection device towards the control unit (Fig.2: first sensor 110 is the mechanical detection device and transfer line 120 conveys mechanical opening signals to the door opening actuator 220 (control unit), see at least, ¶30, Wilflinger) and the diagnostic unit; and a second transfer line separate from the first transfer line, wherein the second transfer line is to convey a second signal comprising the second item of information representative of the activation state of the contactless sensor from the detection device towards the control unit (Fig.2: contactless sensor 115 has a separate second transfer line 125 that conveys contactless opening signals to the door opening actuator 220 (control unit), see at least, ¶30, Wilflinger) and the diagnostic unit.
Dryer, directed to a door operator system teaches towards the control unit and the diagnostic unit (Fig. 1 depicts activation sensors 6 and presence sensor 8 send data to both the control unit 3 and the supervise unit 4 (diagnostic unit), see at least ¶ 90-92, Dryer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Wilflinger to incorporate the teachings of Dryer which teaches towards the control unit and the diagnostic unit since they are both related to sensor activated doors and incorporation of the teachings of Dryer would increase the reliability and reduce the cost of maintaining the of the overall system identifying the source of door malfunction and reduce the cost to service the door in case of sensor malfunction.
Regarding Claim 16, Wilflinger in view of Dryer teaches, the access door of claim 14, wherein the first signal corresponds only to the activation state of the mechanical detection device (the opening signal 120 is the first item of information and it only correlates to the activation of the first sensor device 110, see at least, ¶22, Wilflinger), and wherein the second signal corresponds only to the activation state of the contactless sensor (the opening signal 125 is the second item of information and it only correlates to the activation of the contactless sensor device 110, see at least, ¶22, Wilflinger).
Regarding Claim 17, Wilflinger in view of Dryer teaches, the access door of claim 14, wherein the first signal corresponds only to the activation state of the mechanical detection device or only to the activation state of the contactless sensor (the opening signal 120 is the first item of information and it only correlates to the activation of the first sensor device 110, see at least, ¶22, Wilflinger), and wherein the second signal corresponds to the activation state of the mechanical detection device and/or of the contactless sensor (the opening signal 125 is the second item of information and it only correlates to the activation of the contactless sensor device 110, see at least, ¶22, Wilflinger).
Regarding Claim 20, Wilflinger in view of Dryer teaches, the access door of claim 13.
Dryer, directed to a door operator system teaches, wherein the control circuit further comprises a malfunction module, and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to transmit information to the malfunction module based on the identified malfunction of the contactless sensor (the supervise unit 4 also functions as a malfunction module since identifies that the presence sensor is broken in some way based on the received presence and activation data and see at least, ¶8, 109, 162, Dryer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Wilflinger to incorporate the teachings of Dryer which teaches wherein the control circuit further comprises a malfunction module, and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to transmit information to the malfunction module based on the identified malfunction of the contactless sensor since they are both related to sensor activated doors and incorporation of the teachings of Dryer would increase the reliability and reduce the cost of maintaining the of the overall system identifying the source of door malfunction and reduce the cost to service the door in case of sensor malfunction.
Regarding Claim 21, Wilflinger in view of Dryer teaches, the access door of claim 13.
Dryer, directed to a door operator system teaches, wherein the control circuit further comprises a memory module, and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to supply the memory module with occurrences relating to an activation of the contactless sensor accompanied by an absence of activation of the mechanical detection device (Fig. 1 depicts storage unit 10 and it is obvious that if the frequency of activations must be recorded using the storage unit 10 memory, see at least, ¶106, 8 and 109, Dryer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Wilflinger to incorporate the teachings of Dryer which teaches wherein the control circuit further comprises a memory module, and wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to supply the memory module with occurrences relating to an activation of the contactless sensor accompanied by an absence of activation of the mechanical detection device since they are both related to sensor activated doors and incorporation of the teachings of Dryer would increase the reliability and reduce the cost of maintaining the of the overall system identifying the source of door malfunction and reduce the cost to service the door in case of sensor malfunction.
Regarding Claim 22, Wilflinger in view of Dryer teaches, the access door of claim 13, wherein the first item of information, representative of the activation state of the mechanical detection device, as well as the second item of information, presentative of the activation state of the contactless sensor, are transferred from the detection device to both the diagnostic unit and the control unit.
Dryer, directed to a door operator system teaches, determination that the mechanical detection device activated and the contactless sensor did not activate (Supervise unit 4 determines that the presence sensors are broken based on the presence of activation data without presence data from the presence sensor, see at least, ¶8 and 109, Dryer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Wilflinger to incorporate the teachings of Dryer which teaches determination that the mechanical detection device activated and the contactless sensor did not activate since they are both related to sensor activated doors and incorporation of the teachings of Dryer would increase the reliability and reduce the cost of maintaining the of the overall system identifying the source of door malfunction and reduce the cost to service the door in case of sensor malfunction.
Regarding Claim 23 and 28, Wilflinger in view of Dryer teaches, the access door of claim 13 (re-claim 23) and the access door of claim 26 (re-claim 28).
Dryer, directed to a door operator system teaches, wherein the control circuit is configured to alert an operator upon determining that a predetermined number of identified malfunctions of the contactless sensor has occurred (if the supervise unit4 identifies conflicting data for example, 1 out of 10 openings, it sends the information to service personnel, see at least, ¶109, 133, 138, Dryer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Wilflinger to incorporate the teachings of Dryer which teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to alert an operator upon determining that a predetermined number of identified malfunctions of the contactless sensor has occurred since they are both related to sensor activated doors and incorporation of the teachings of Dryer would increase the reliability and reduce the cost of maintaining the of the overall system identifying the source of door malfunction and reduce the cost to service the door in case of sensor malfunction.
Regarding Claim 24 and 29, Ref1 teaches,
The access door of claim 13 (re-claim 24), and the access door of claim 26 (re-claim 29),
Dryer, directed to a door operator system teaches, wherein the control circuit is configured to determine a variation, as a function of time, in a ratio of a number of activations of the contactless sensor and a number of activations of the mechanical detection device and wherein the control circuit is configured to determine a malfunction of the mechanical detection device based on the determined variation in the ratio (an uncommon sequence of activations of the contactless sensor and the activation sensors is interpreted as a variation in a ratio of 1 out of 10 openings, is an indication of a potential malfunction. When the conflicting data of the activation sensors (mechanical detection device), this indicates that there is a problem with of the moving parts of the operator system 11, see at least, ¶172-176, Dryer).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Wilflinger to incorporate the teachings of Dryer which teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to determine a variation, as a function of time, in a ratio of a number of activations of the contactless sensor and a number of activations of the mechanical detection device and wherein the control circuit is configured to determine a malfunction of the mechanical detection device based on the determined variation in the ratio since they are both related to sensor activated doors and incorporation of the teachings of Dryer would increase the reliability and reduce the cost of maintaining the of the overall system identifying the source of door malfunction and reduce the cost to service the door in case of sensor malfunction.
Regarding Claim 25 and 27, Wilflinger teaches, the access door of claim 13 (re-claim 25) and the access door of claim 26 (re-claim 27), wherein the access door is configured as a platform screen door (Fig. 3 depicts door 210 is on a rail vehicle 205, see at least, ¶Abstract, Wilflinger).
Claims 15 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilflinger et al. (EP3882104A1) (Machine Translation Attached) in view of Dreyer (US 20200024885 A1) as applied to claims 13-14, 16-17, 20-23, 24-29 and 30-31 and further in view of Hass et al. (US 20210090427 A1).
Regarding Claim 15 and 32, Wilflinger in view of Dryer teaches, the access door of claim 14 (re-claim 15) and the system of claim 31 (re-claim 32), wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to compare, for a predetermined duration, the first signal to the second signal (Fig. 2 depicts opening signals 120 and 125 are required to open the door, see at least, ¶32, Wilflinger).
Wilflinger in view of Dryer does not explicitly teach does not explicitly teach compare, for a predetermined duration, the first signal to the second signal.
Hass, directed to active monitoring of a door system, teaches, compare, for a predetermined duration, the first signal to the second signal (the one or more sensors may capture the sensor information at one or more specific points in time within specific time periods when the door is operating, see at least, ¶12, Hass).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Wilflinger and Dreyer to incorporate the teachings of Hass which teaches capture sensor information for a predetermined duration and compare the two sensor values for a predetermined time since Wilflinger, Dreyer and Hass are directed toward sensor systems on doors and incorporation of the teachings of Hass would increase the reliability of the overall system by ensuring the timing of sensors that can reliably open a door when it is desired by a user.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilflinger et al. (EP3882104A1) (Machine Translation Attached) in view of Dreyer (US 20200024885 A1) as applied to claims 13-14, 16-17, 20-23, 24-29 and 30-31 and further in view of Straeussnigg et al. (US 20160007101 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Wilflinger in view of Dryer teaches, the access door of claim 13, wherein the transfer circuit comprises a single transfer line to convey a signal comprising the first item of information and the second item of information from the detection device towards both the control unit and the diagnostic unit (Fig. 2 depicts opening signals 120 and 125 are transferred to the door opening actuator 220, see at least, ¶30, Wilflinger).
Wilflinger in view of Dryer does not explicitly teach a single transfer line.
Straeussnigg, directed to a sensor device, teaches, a single transfer line (Fig. 1 depicts combiner circuitry 130 configured to combine the first sensor signal 112 and second sensor signal 122 as a combined signal, see at least, ¶42, Straeussnigg).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Wilflinger and Dreyer to incorporate the teachings of Straeussnigg which teaches a single transfer line since Wilflinger, Dreyer and Straeussnigg are directed toward sensor systems and incorporation of the teachings of Straeussnigg would increase the scalability and reduce the cost of the overall system by reducing the number of interconnections between sensor devices and the control unit ( [¶54, Straeussnigg]:” To summarize the functionality of the example system according to FIG. 2, the two useful signals 212 and 222 (MIC signal and BAP signal) are combined in order to reduce the number of interconnections and thus the amount of wiring between the devices 200 and 250”).
Regarding Claim 19, Wilflinger and Dreyer in view of Straeussnigg teaches,
the access door of claim 18,
Straeussnigg, directed to a sensor device, further teaches wherein the diagnostic unit is configured to identify a first signature comprising a first pattern and a second signature comprising a second pattern based on the signal, wherein the first signature corresponds to the active value of the first item of information, and wherein the second signature corresponds to the active value of the second item of information (Fig. 2 depicts that the receiver device 250 must be able to identify the signals signatures in order to separate the signals, see at least, ¶53).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the invention of Wilflinger and Dreyer to incorporate the teachings of Straeussnigg which teaches wherein the receiver device is configured to identify different signatures carried by the single electrical signal, with each of the signatures corresponding to a different one of the first and second items of information and implement the functionality of the receiver device of Straeussnigg to the control unit of Wilflinger and Dryer since Wilflinger, Dreyer and Straeussnigg are directed toward sensor systems and incorporation of the teachings of Straeussnigg would increase the scalability and reduce the cost of the overall system by reducing the number of interconnections between sensor devices and the control unit ( [¶54, Straeussnigg]:” To summarize the functionality of the example system according to FIG. 2, the two useful signals 212 and 222 (MIC signal and BAP signal) are combined in order to reduce the number of interconnections and thus the amount of wiring between the devices 200 and 250”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights