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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 10/7/2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 1-10 have been amended, thus currently claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrases:
“wherein the lighting element (lighting element 16, see figures 1-2) comprises a light source…” on line 6, should be changed to -- wherein the lighting element (lighting element 16, see figures 1-2) comprises: a light source …--. To ensure the list of elements following the semicolon are elements of the “lighting element (lighting element 16, see figures 1-2)” of line 1.
“the door drive” on line 11, should be changed to -- of a door drive --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 9 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 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 6, the phrase “the assembly is adapted for connection to a power source”, is unclear because:
In the claim, the assembly holds or supports the light source (see line 4) and includes a microcontroller or integrated circuits (see line 6). One of ordinary skill would have recognized, the microcontroller or integrated circuit and light source have terminals to receive power, therefore, it is unclear how any assembly such as the assembly in claim 6 can be further adapted for connection to a power source.
For purpose of examination, the phrase has been interpreted to mean -- the assembly is connected to a power source --
Claim 8 is rejected as it depends from claim 6
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 1, 3-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calcavante et al. (EP 3020906 B1, hereinafter, “Calcavante”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 10/7/2025) in view of Takanari et al. (JPH04363488A, hereinafter, “Takanari”).
Regarding claim 1, Cavalcante teaches a lighting element (lighting element 16, see figures 1-2) for sliding doors (13-14), having a door track rail (11) that comprises a movable carriage (13), on which a door leaf (14) is hung (as seen in fig 2), a motor (drive device, see ¶ 42 of “description”) for moving the carriage (13) and an electronic controller (not disclosed but necessarily included to control the door slide motion) of the door drive (drive device, 13-14) containing a door assembly (operating device 10, see fig 1) a microcontroller or another integrated circuit for controlling the door drive,
wherein the lighting element (16) comprises a light source (29) connected to an assembly (28) of the lighting element (16), the assembly of the lighting element is an independent assembly electrically connected to the main control PCB assembly of the door drive, or the assembly (28) is fully integrated (as seen in figures 1-2) into the electronic controller (as the device is disclosed as a kit, that includes the lighting element and door drive) of the door drive (drive device, 13-14).
Although Cavalcante lighting element is part of a sliding door drive apparatus, and expected to have mechanics and electric components such as a motor, stator and electronics connected to power the motor;
Cavalcante does not explicitly teach the motor comprising a stator and a sliding part of the motor placed on the carriage and the electronic controller including a main control PCB assembly (2) of the door drive containing a microcontroller or another integrated circuit for controlling the door drive.
Takanari teaches a door assembly (Linear motor type automatic door opening and closing device see figures 1-7) having a motor (linear motor stator 31 and Linear motor movable child 32, see fig 1);
the motor (31-32) comprising a stator (31) and a sliding part (32) of the motor (31-32) placed on the carriage (38) and the electronic controller (Controller 35, flexible printed circuit board 4 and electric wires 36) including a main control PCB assembly (4) of the door drive (4, 33, 35, 36) containing a microcontroller or another integrated circuit (sensors 3a, 3b) for controlling the door drive (4, 33, 35, 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the stator, sliding part and electronic controller as taught by Takanari into the teachings of Cavalcante, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide an inexpensive miniaturized automatic door opening and closing device having a simple structure which uses a linear motor as a drive source.
Regarding claim 3, Cavalcante teaches wherein the light source (29) is selected from LED diodes (LEDs, see ¶ 30 of “description”),
LED arrays, LED diodes with integrated power elements or control circuits, LED strips, bulbs, fluorescent lights, lasers, projection sources (projecting light sources, see ¶ 16 of description), ultraviolet sources, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Cavalcante teaches further comprising optical elements selected from light guides, mirrors (inner surface of 28, see fig 2), reflective plates, and lenses (light diffusion 27, see fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, Cavalcante teaches further comprising optical elements selected from light guides, mirrors (inner surface of 28, see fig 2), reflective plates, and lenses (light diffusion 27, see fig 2).
Claims 2, 5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calcavante et al. (EP 3020906 B1, hereinafter, “Calcavante”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 10/7/2025) in view of Takanari et al. (JPH04363488A, hereinafter, “Takanari”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Houser et al. (WO 2011115830 A1, hereinafter, “Houser”).
Regarding claim 2, Cavalcante does not explicitly teach further comprising a power electronics PCB assembly, which is connected between the assembly of the lighting element and the main control PCB assembly of the door drive.
Houser teaches a lighting element (LED lamp 60b, see figures 1-21); further comprising:
a power electronics PCB assembly (door control apparatus 20, see fig 4), which is connected between the assembly of the lighting element (60b and sensor 84) and the main control PCB assembly of the door drive (control circuitry 83, see fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate a main control PCB assembly as taught by Houser into the teachings of Cavalcante, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide link the lighting element functionality to the door assembly, and for instance provide or modify illumination according to the door assembly, or according to the time of the day,
Regarding claim 5, Cavalcante does not explicitly teach wherein the light source is connected directly to the main control PCB assembly, with the microcontroller or another integrated circuit configured for controlling the door drive simultaneously programmed for controlling the light source.
Houser teaches a lighting element (LED lamp 60b, see figures 1-21);
wherein the light source (60b) is connected directly to the main control PCB assembly (door control apparatus 20, see fig 4), with the microcontroller or another integrated circuit (control circuitry 83, see fig 3) configured for controlling the door drive (motor 100) simultaneously programmed for controlling the light source (60b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate a main control PCB assembly as taught by Houser into the teachings of Cavalcante, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide link the lighting element functionality to the door assembly, and for instance provide or modify illumination according to the door assembly, or according to the time of the day,
Regarding claim 7, Cavalcante does not teach further comprising a position sensor connected to the assembly of the lighting element.
Houser teaches a lighting element (LED lamp 60b, see figures 1-21); further comprising:
a position sensor (sensor 84, see fig 3) connected to the assembly (60b, 84) of the lighting element (60b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the position sensor as taught by Houser into the teachings of Cavalcante, in order to provide accurate position of the user approaching the door. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to enhance coordinate the operation of door and lighting element.
Regarding claim 10, Cavalcante does not teach further comprising a sound module.
Houser teaches a lighting element (LED lamp 60b, see figures 1-21); further comprising:
a sound module (sound emitter, see ¶ 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sound module as taught by Houser into the teachings of Cavalcante in order to provide acoustic signal for users approaching the door. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve communication with users with poor or impaired vision.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calcavante et al. (EP 3020906 B1, hereinafter, “Calcavante”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 10/7/2025) in view of Houser et al. (WO 2011115830 A1, hereinafter, “Houser”).
Regarding claim 6, Cavalcante teaches a lighting element (lighting element 16, see figures 1-2) for sliding doors (13-14), having a door track rail (11) that comprises a movable carriage (13), on which a door leaf (14) is hung (as seen in fig 2),
wherein the lighting element (16) comprises an assembly (28) of the lighting element (16) and a light source (29) connected to the assembly (28), wherein the assembly (28) is adapted for connection to a power source (necessarily included for the device to perform as intended) configured for controlling the light source (29), and both the assembly (28) and the light source (29) are integrated (as clearly seen in fig 2) into the door track rail (11).
Cavalcante does not explicitly teach the assembly comprises a microcontroller or another integrated circuit
Houser teaches a lighting element (LED lamp 60b, see figures 1-21);
the assembly (door control apparatus 20, see fig 4) comprises a microcontroller or another integrated circuit (control circuitry 83, see fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate a main control PCB assembly as taught by Houser into the teachings of Cavalcante, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide link the lighting element functionality to the door assembly, and for instance provide or modify illumination according to the door assembly, or according to the time of the day,
Regarding claim 8, Cavalcante teaches wherein the light source (29) is selected from LED diodes (LEDs, see ¶ 30 of “description”),
LED arrays, LED diodes with integrated power elements or control circuits, LED strips, bulbs, fluorescent lights, lasers, projection sources (projecting light sources, see ¶ 16 of description), ultraviolet sources, or combinations thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee Yong Tea. (KR 101050193 B1) discloses a lighting element installed on a sliding door. Wherein light is selectively switch on and off LED lamp according to the opening and closing state of an automatic door.
Ao Si-ka (CN 101881126 A) discloses a lighting element for an sliding door device. Wherein door is connected in the clamping mechanism; the luminous device is located on the upper surface of the door.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ROJAS CADIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8007. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm.
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, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. 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.
/OMAR ROJAS CADIMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 /OMAR ROJAS CADIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights