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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 08/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 12-24 are still pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 8 that claim 16 recites a method for retrofitting an existing passenger transport system by installing the device according to Claim 12 on an existing passenger transport system such that optical indicators of a control device of the existing passenger transport system are detected by the device. Thus, claim 16 is not indefinite.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because claim 12 it depends on include no installation steps. As such, the claim 16 is still indefinite because the method recites a step that cannot be understood in structural terms by PHOSITA. The applicant should amend the claim from “installing the device according to claim 12” to “installing the device of claim 12” to avoid any ambiguity.
The applicant further argues on page 9 that the examiner did not identify at least one optical indicator (LED) in the Sekine description or drawings. Sekine mentions LEDs in the control board 110 and photoelectric sensors included in the support apparatus 120, but does not disclose at least one plug-in device that is adapted to be plugged onto at least one optical indicator as recited in Applicant’s Claim 12.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Sekine’s paragraph 0072 clearly mentions that item 122 is within item 120 according to fig. 2. Paragraph 0072 also teaches photoelectric sensors’ output changes according to the turning off/on of the LEDs. Also, photoelectric sensors are part of 120 because these are connected. Therefore, arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-16 and 18-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: a term “Claim” should be re-written as “claim”. 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 12-16 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 12 recites “one plug-in device has at least one of a photoelectric element and a camera for monitoring the indicator”. However, if the limitation is satisfied solely by “a photoelectric element”, it is unclear how the “monitoring” function can be adequality performed. Therefore, unless a camera is included, the claim fails to satisfy how the monitoring function is achieved, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 is a method claim. However, claim 12 does not disclose any step required by claim 16. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
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 12, 14 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekine et al. (US 2015/0293799 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sekine et al. disclose
A device (Item 100) for monitoring an operating state of a control device (Item 110) of a passenger transport system, the device comprising: a detection unit (Item 121) detecting a signaled state of the control device and generating a first electrical quantity depending on the detected signaled state;
an evaluation unit (Item 202) analyzing the first electrical quantity in relation to an operating state of the control device and generating a second electrical quantity dependent on the analysis of the first electrical quantity; an interface (Item 204) transmitting the second electrical quantity; wherein the detection unit includes a conversion device for converting an optical signal of at least one optical indicator of the control device into the first electrical quantity; wherein the conversion device has at least one plug-in device (Item 122) that is adapted to be plugged onto at least one optical indicator (LED) of the control device; and wherein the at least one plug-in device has at least one of a photoelectric element (Photoelectric sensor) or
a camera for monitoring the indicator and faces the at least one optical indicator when the plug-in device is plugged onto the at least one optical indicator. [0072-0075] (Item 122 is within item 120 according to fig. 2. Paragraph 0072 also teaches photoelectric sensors’ output changes according to the turning off/on of the LEDs. Also, photoelectric sensors are part of 120 because these are connected) (The bold portion is optional which the examiner has not given any patentable weight)
Regarding claim 14, Sekine et al. disclose wherein the conversion device is adapted to be mounted in a control device housing that accommodates the control device and to monitor a plurality of the at least one optical indicators in the control device housing. [0039, 0072]
Regarding claim 16, Sekine et al. disclose
A method for retrofitting an existing passenger transport system, the method comprising the step of: installing the device according to Claim 12 on an existing passenger transport system such that optical indicators of a control device of the existing passenger transport system are detected by the device. (See claim 12 rejection for details)
Regarding claim 17, Sekine et al. disclose A method for monitoring an operating state of a control device (Fig. 1, item 100) of a passenger transport system (Item 101) [0031], the method comprising the steps of: optically monitoring at least one optical indicator (LED) of the control device with a conversion device having at least one plug-in device that is plugged onto the at least one optical indicator ; generating an electrical signal (Output of photoelectric sensors) corresponding to an optical state of the at least one optical indicator; detecting a change (Via item 202) in the optical state of the at least one optical indicator based on a change in the electrical signal; and evaluating the detected change in the optical state to determine the operating state of the control device. [0072-0075] (Item 122 is within item 120 according to fig. 2. Paragraph 0072 also teaches photoelectric sensors’ output changes according to the turning off/on of the LEDs. Also, photoelectric sensors are part of 120 because these are connected)
Regarding claim 18, Sekine et al. disclose
including continuously optically monitoring the at least one optical indicator [0072].
Regarding claim 19, Sekine et al. disclose
wherein the detection of the change in the optical state of the at least one optical indicator includes identifying a change in at least one of color, state change patterns and a one-time switch-off and/or switch-on. [0072]
Regarding claim 20, Sekine et al. disclose
wherein the state change patterns include at least one of on-off patterns and intensity change patterns (Via Visual). [0072]
Regarding claim 21, Sekine et al. disclose
including performing the steps in a learning phase during which the evaluating of the detected change in the optical state is used to define an operating state of at least one of the control device and the passenger transport system. [0072]
Regarding claim 22, Sekine et al. disclose
including performing the steps in a monitoring phase during which the evaluating of the detected change in the optical state is used to identify an error state (Abnormality that occurred at the elevator) of at least one of the control device and the passenger transport system. [0125]
Regarding claim 23, Sekine et al. disclose
including a step of transmitting the detected change in the optical state to an entity outside (Remote) the passenger transport system. [0065, 0075, 0088, 0112-0114]
Regarding claim 24, Sekine et al. disclose
including a step of resetting (Using existing functions) the control device when a specific error state of the control device or passenger transport system is identified. [0125, 0126]
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 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine et al. (US 2015/0293799 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sekine et al. do not explicitly say wherein the photoelectric element is a photoresistor”. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a photoresistor in Sekine’s teachings to change the output.
Regarding claim 15, Sekine et al. do not explicitly say wherein the plug-in device includes a camera monitoring at least one further optical indicator and faces away from the at least one optical indicator when the plug-in device is plugged onto the at least one optical indicator. However, it However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an extra camera faces away to indicate any informality of an optical indicator when the plug-in-device is plugged.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 5712722078. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896