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
Receipt is acknowledged of applicants’ amendment filed June 17, 2025. Claims 8-20 have been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1-7 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of Invention I in the reply filed on June 17, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 1-7 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 1 includes the limitation “an optical sensor, configured to sense optical data generated according to the light”. However light is understood as containing certain properties which can be measured and converted into data, e.g. intensity, color, etc. It is unclear how light—a form of energy—can generate optical data—computer communicable information. For examining purposes, as best understood by examiner, this limitation is interpreted as stating “an optical sensor, configured to generate optical data according to sensed light”.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims do not correct the deficiencies of claim 1.
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 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Novak (US 9,212,028 B2).
Claim 1: Novak discloses an anti-pinch device for preventing a target object (person or other obstruction) being pinched by a movable part (elevator door) (column 1 lines 6-8), where a sensing element (34) is comprised of a light source (light emitter) to emit a light and an optical sensor (light receiver) to generate optical data according to sensed light (column 4 lines 25-31). A processing circuit determines whether the target object exists between the movable part and another part according to the optical data (column 4 lines 35-38), where said another part is described as a wall (38) of an elevator car (column 4 lines 13-17), and therefore is considered a fixed part. The movable part is controlled according to the determination of whether the target object is between the movable part and the fixed part (column 2 lines 1-4).
Claim 2: Novak discloses an anti-pinch device as stated above, where the movable part is a door of an elevator (column 3 lines 55-60).
Claim 4: Novak discloses an anti-pinch device as stated above, where the fixed part is an elevator car (column 4 lines 13-17). Therefore the fixed part is fixed in a first state while the elevator doors are open at a floor, and is movable in a second state while transporting passengers to another floor, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 5: Novak discloses an anti-pinch device as stated above, where the movable part is a door of an elevator (column 3 lines 55-60), and therefore is considered a component of a machine (elevator).
Claims 6 and 7: Novak discloses an anti-pinch device as stated above, where the light source is in a predetermined range opposite to/of the optical sensor (column 4 lines 25-31) in order to receive the light, as is recognized in the art.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak (US 9,212,028 B2) in view of Shikai et al. (US 6,962,239 B2).
Claim 3: Novak discloses an anti-pinch device as stated above, where the processing circuit determines a location of a control object according to the optical data based on sensed information from a first sensing element (first obstruction sensor 22) and/or a second sensing element (supplemental obstruction sensor 30) positioned at different locations proximate the movable part (column 3 lines 55-63). This reference fails to disclose the processing circuitry to control a device associated with an interactive interface according to a relative location between the control object and the interactive interface.
However Shikai et al. teaches an anti-pinch device, where processing circuitry controls a device (display device 60) associated with an interactive interface (operation panel 50) (column 3 lines 47-50) according to a relative location between the control object and the interactive interface (column 6 lines 13-20).
Given the teachings of Shikai et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-pinch device disclosed in Novak with providing the processing circuitry to control a device associated with an interactive interface according to a relative location between the control object and the interactive interface. Doing so would provide a warning for a passenger in the elevator car to “step away from the door” as taught in Shikai et al. (column 6 lines 13-20) “to prevent any members such as passenger’s clothes and hands from being drawn into the gap defined between the [fixed part] and the [movable part]” (column 4 lines 4-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0315262 A1, US 10,040,670 B2, US 10,087,049 B2, US 11,912,531 B2 pertaining to anti-pinch devices using light source and optical sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 June 27, 2025