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 July 28, 2025. Claims 4 and 5 have been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1-3 and 6-18 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Rejections of claims 2 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims have been considered and are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 17 include limitations pertaining to a “chronological order”. However the originally filed disclosure does not properly describe a chronological order. The claims previously included limitations pertaining to a “time sequence”, and have been amended to state “chronological order”. It appears that applicants seek to further define/narrow the previous claimed limitations by introducing the phrase “chronological order” instead of a generically described “time sequence”. Therefore these limitations are considered as containing new matter.
Claims 2, 3, 6-11, 13-16 and 18 depend from claims 1 or 12 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims then also contain the limitations considered as new matter.
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 6-9 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.
Claims 6-9 directly or indirectly depend from claim 4. However claim 4 was canceled via amendment. For examining purposes, these claims are interpreted as depending directly from claim 1.
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 1, 6, 7 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh (US 2021/0365125 A1) in view of Koukoumidis et al. (US 2017/0212600 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Sneh discloses a control device (figs. 1, 2B), comprising a control panel (fig. 1) comprising a plurality of buttons (12), the buttons comprising; a non-contact sensor (124), which is capable of sensing the approaching of an object and generating a proximity signal (paragraphs 68-72); and a micro switch, which is capable of generating a contact signal when the button is pressed (paragraphs 8, 24,57) (Figs. 1, 2B-5B, 7, paragraphs 5-16, 20, 22-33, 38-41, 43-49, 52-61, 64-89, 96- 100.); wherein the control device further comprises a processor (126) connected to the control panel (fig. 1) to receive the proximity signal and the contact signal (fig. 2B, paragraphs 8, 24,57, 72-81). (Figs. 1, 2B-5B, 7, paragraphs 5-16, 20, 22-33, 38-41, 43-49, 52-61, 64-89, 96-100.); wherein the processor is configured to determine that the designated button is triggered (figs. 3A-3C, paragraphs 68-81) in response to receiving at least two or at least three proximity signals with gradually decreasing distance information sent by any designated button of the plurality of buttons (figs. 3A-3C, paragraph 76-79). Sneh is silent regarding the distance information to be sent in chronological order within a specific time period T. Koukoumidis et al. teaches of receiving proximity signals with gradually decreasing distance information sent by any designated button of the plurality of buttons in chronological order within a specific time period in order to determine whether fingers are moving toward or away from the sensors (paragraphs 24-25, 45-48) and determine that the designated button is triggered the processor is configured to receive any two signals sent by any designated button of the plurality of buttons in time sequence within a specific time period (paragraphs 24-25, 45-48). (Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 21-75.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Koukoumidis et al. into the invention of Sneh, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to use the ranges of values provided by the proximity sensors to allow for more nuanced and precise user interfaces than what is typically available using the binary output associated with a capacitive display. (Abstract.)
With respect to claim 6-7, Sneh, as modified, discloses the processor is configured to, when receiving at least two or at least three proximity signals (figs. 3A-3C) with gradually decreasing distance information sent by any designated button of the plurality of buttons, determine that the designated button is triggered (figs. 3A-3C, paragraphs 68-81) the processor (126, paragraph 73) is configured to receive any two signals sent by any designated button (12) of the plurality of buttons, wherein the two signals comprise first distance information (‘value’ in fig. 3B situation; paragraphs 67-79); and second distance information (‘value’ in fig. 3C situation; paragraphs 67-79) respectively (figs. 3A-3C), and when the two signals satisfy that the first distance signal (‘value’ in fig. 3B situation; paragraphs 67-79); is in a first distance range (fig. 3B); and the second distance signal (‘value’ in fig. 3C situation; paragraphs 67- 79) is in a second distance range (fig. 3C), it is determined that the designated button is triggered (fig. 3C), wherein an intermediate value of the first distance range (figs. 3A-3C) is larger than an intermediate value of the second distance range (figs. 3A-3C); wherein the processor is configured to receive any three signals sent by any designated button of the plurality of buttons, wherein the three signals comprise first distance information (‘value’ in fig. 3A situation; paragraphs 67-79), second distance information (‘value’ in fig. 3B situation; paragraphs 67-79) and third distance information (‘value’ in fig. 3C situation; paragraphs 67-79) respectively, and when the three signals satisfy that the first distance signal (‘value’ in fig. 3A situation; paragraphs 67-79); is in a first distance range (A), the second distance signal (‘value’ in fig. 3B situation; paragraphs 67-79) is in a second distance range (B) and the third distance signal (‘value’ in fig. 3C situation; paragraphs 67-79) is in a third distance range (C), it is determined that the designated button is triggered (fig. 3C), wherein an intermediate value of the first distance range (A): is larger than an intermediate value of the second distance range (B), and the intermediate value of the second distance range (B) is larger than an intermediate value of the third distance range (C). (Figs. 1, 2B-5B, 7, paragraphs 5-16, 20, 22-33, 38-41, 43-49, 52-61, 64-89, 96-100.)
With respect to claim 11, Sneh, as modified, discloses an elevator system paragraph 5), comprising the control device according to claim 1. (Figs. 1, 2B-5B, 7, paragraphs 5-16, 20, 22-33, 38-41, 43-49, 52-61, 64-89, 96-100.)
With respect to claims 12-14, Sneh discloses a method for determining triggering of a control device (figs. 1, 2B), wherein the control device comprising a control panel (fig. 1) comprising a plurality of buttons (12), the buttons comprising; a non-contact sensor (124), which is capable of sensing the approaching of an object and generating a proximity signal (paragraphs 68-72); and a micro switch, which is capable of generating a contact signal when the button is pressed (paragraphs 8, 24, 57); generating a proximity signal when any one of the plurality of buttons senses the approaching of an object, the proximity signal comprising distance information (figs. 3A-3C); and when receiving at least two or at least three proximity signals (figs. 3A-3C) with gradually decreasing distance information sent by any designated button of the plurality of buttons, determine that the designated button is triggered (figs. 3A-3C, paragraphs 68-81) the processor (126, paragraph 73) is configured to receive any two signals sent by any designated button (12) of the plurality of buttons, wherein the two signals comprise first distance information (‘value’ in fig. 3B situation; paragraphs 67-79); and second distance information (‘value’ in fig. 3C situation; paragraphs 67-79) respectively (figs. 3A-3C), and when the two signals satisfy that the first distance signal (‘value’ in fig. 3B situation; paragraphs 67-79); is in a first distance range (fig. 3B); and the second distance signal (‘value’ in fig. 3C situation; paragraphs 67-79) is in a second distance range (fig. 3C), it is determined that the designated button is triggered (fig. 3C), wherein an intermediate value of the first distance range (figs. 3A-3C) is larger than an intermediate value of the second distance range (figs. 3A-3C); wherein the processor is configured to receive any three signals sent by any designated button of the plurality of buttons, wherein the three signals comprise first distance information (‘value’ in fig. 3A situation; paragraphs 67-79), second distance information (‘value’ in fig. 3B situation; paragraphs 67-79) and third distance information (‘value’ in fig. 3C situation; paragraphs 67-79) respectively, and when the three signals satisfy that the first distance signal (‘value’ in fig. 3A situation; paragraphs 67-79); is in a first distance range (A), the second distance signal (‘value’ in fig. 3B situation; paragraphs 67-79) is in a second distance range (B) and the third distance signal (‘value’ in fig. 3C situation; paragraphs 67-79) is in a third distance range (C), it is determined that the designated button is triggered (fig. 3C), wherein an intermediate value of the first distance range (A): is larger than an intermediate value of the second distance range (B), and the intermediate value of the second distance range (B) is larger than an intermediate value of the third distance range (C). (Figs. 1, 2B-5B, 7, paragraphs 5-16, 20, 22-33, 38-41, 43-49, 52-61, 64-89, 96-100.) Sneh, as modified, is silent regarding the distance information to be sent in chronological order within a specific time period T. Koukoumidis et al. teaches of receiving proximity signals with gradually decreasing distance information sent by any designated button of the plurality of buttons chronological order within a specific time period in order to determine whether fingers are moving toward or away from the sensors (paragraphs 24-25, 45-48) and determine that the designated button is triggered the processor is configured to receive any two signals sent by any designated button of the plurality of buttons in time sequence within a specific time period (paragraphs 24-25, 45-48). (Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 21-75.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Koukoumidis et al. into the invention of Sneh, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to use the ranges of values provided by the proximity sensors to allow for more nuanced and precise user interfaces than what is typically available using the binary output associated with a capacitive display. (Abstract.)
With respect to claim 15, Sneh, as modified, discloses the processor (126) is configured to, when receiving the contact signal sent by the micro switch of any designated button of the plurality of buttons due to being pressed, determine that the designated button is triggered (paragraphs 8, 24, 57). (Figs. 1, 2B-5B, 7, paragraphs 5-16, 20, 22-33, 38-41, 43-49, 52-61, 64-89, 96-100.)
With respect to claims 16-17, Sneh, as modified, discloses the processor is configured to ignore proximity signals that do not correspond to a sequence of two proximity signals with gradually decreasing distance information sent in chronological order by any designated button of the plurality of buttons within the specific time period T without receiving a proximity signal from a third region, wherein that only sequences meeting both the decreasing distance and time window requirements are recognized as valid triggering events, and all other proximity signals are disregarded as non-triggering (paragraphs 18, 21, 35).
With respect to claim 18, Sneh, as modified by Koukoumidis et al., shows the processor is configured to determine that the designated button is triggered only if two proximity signals are received within a time period T without receiving a proximity signal from a third region (paragraphs 18, 21, 35). Sneh, as modified, is silent regarding the specific time period T to be in the range of 0.5 to 2 seconds. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the specific time period T to be in the range of 0.5 to 2 seconds with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would allow the device to disregard unintentional activations, e.g., if a user stands too close to the control panel after triggering a button, as taught in Koukoumidis et al. (paragraph 13).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh and Koukoumidis et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yoon (KR 10-2010-0070551 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’).
With respect to claims 2 and 10, Sneh, as modified, discloses the control panel comprises: a button panel (10), the non-contact sensor (13) being located on a back side of the button panel (10); wherein the non- contact sensor (13) is adhered to the back side of the button panel (10) but is silent regarding a circuit board. Yoon discloses a printed circuit board (C), the non-contact sensor (10, 20) being electrically coupled to the printed circuit board (C); wherein the printed circuit board (C) further comprises a micro switch, and the button panel is supported by a spring member (S), so that pressing the button panel can further cause the micro switch (T) on the printed circuit board to be pressed; and the button panel is elastically supported on the printed circuit board (C) by a spring (S). (Figs. 1-3B, MTD pages 1-2.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Yoon into the invention of Sneh, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a shock-resistant reliable way to call the elevator. (MTD page 1.)
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh and Koukoumidis et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yerazunis et al. (US 2022/0106159).
With respect to claim 3, Sneh, as modified, is silent regarding a time of flight sensor. Yerazunis et al. teaches of the non-contact sensor is a TOF sensor capable of sensing a distance from an object (paragraph 128), and the proximity signal comprises distance information (paragraph 128). (Figs. 1-9, paragraphs 98-128, 135-136.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Yerazunis et al. into the invention of Sneh, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide high reliability and long functional life because of the absence of mechanical parts and lack of physical contact between the sensor and the sensed object. (Paragraph 135.)
With respect to claim 8, Sneh, as modified, discloses the processor (126) is configured to, when receiving the contact signal sent by the micro switch of any designated button of the plurality of buttons due to being pressed, determine that the designated button is triggered (paragraphs 8, 24, 57). (Figs. 1, 2B-5B, 7, paragraphs 5-16, 20, 22-33, 38-41, 43-49, 52-61, 64-89, 96-100.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneh Yerazunis et al. and Koukoumidis et al., as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Yoon.
With respect to claim 9, Sneh, as modified, discloses the button panel is a light-transmitting panel (fig. 2B), and processor (126) is further provided with LED lights (122), which are lit up when the button is triggered but is silent regarding a circuit board. (Figs. 1, 2B-5B, 7, paragraphs 5-16, 20, 22-33, 38-41, 43-49, 52-61, 64-89, 96-100.) Yoon discloses a printed circuit board (C), the non-contact sensor (10, 20) being electrically coupled to the printed circuit board (C). (Figs. 1-3B, MTD pages 1-2.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Yoon into the invention of Sneh with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a shock-resistant reliable way to call the elevator. (MTD page 1.)
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed July 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state on page 7 of the response that “nor does Sneh disclose monitoring a series of decreasing distance readings”. However Sneh describes the control device to incorporate a hysteresis to exclude triggering selections if a proper series of decreasing distance readings is not detected, e.g. when it is determined that an object moves from a first region to a second region and directly to the first region again without moving from a third region first, in which the third region is furthest from the sensor and the first region is closest (paragraph 18). Therefore Sneh properly discloses monitoring a series of decreasing distance readings.
Applicants state that “Koukoumidis does not disclose or suggest using monotonically decreasing distance readings to identify a user approaching a specific button”. However this limitation was shown to be disclosed in the primary reference of Sneh (Figs. 3A-3B, paragraph 70-78). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the combined teachings of Sneh modified by Koukoumidis properly render obvious applicants’ invention as required by the independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 December 11, 2025