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 .
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
With respect to claim 1, line 6, it is unclear of what is meant by "a tape-shaped base body". Its
unclear and indefinite of what "tape-shaped" or "base" meant in this instant. Tape shaped could be a
roll of tape or segment of tape, something longer than wide. There is no base to body, as in base being
stable bottom touching ground. Examiner is interpreting it to mean a strip, simply a segment that is
longer than wide.
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(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birrer et al (PGPUB
2019/0002245) as applied to, and further in view of Murray et al (PGPUB 2019/0094001).
With respect to claim 1, Birrer teaches measuring tape for determining the position of an
elevator car (fig. 1, 11) in an elevator shaft (paragraph 0025, shaft), said measuring tape being vertically
disposable in the elevator shaft and preferably being disposable so as to extend across at least two
building floors (inherent that elevator moves between floors),
said measuring tape having a tape-shaped base body (fig. 1, 19) and a position coding
(paragraph 0013) which is capable of being read out by means of a magnetic field sensor (fig. 1, 20) and
is made of ferromagnetic material (paragraph 0014; steel), and
wherein the position coding is disposed (paragraph 0013; code marks) so as to be inserted into
the base body or so as to be applied to a surface of the base body (fig. 1, paragraph 0025/0028;
measuring tape runs along guide rail/not shown in fig 1).
Birrer does not teach wherein the tape-shaped base body is made of textile material.
Murray teaches wherein the tape-shaped base body is made of textile material (fig. 1, 142;
paragraph 002; measuring tape can be metal, fabric, surveyor tape). It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have measuring tape of Birrer be a
textile, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known
material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re
Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 2, Birrer teaches wherein the position coding (paragraph 0028; read by
sensor) is realized in such a manner that it produces a magnetic field which is temporary and capable of
being read out by means of the magnetic field sensor when being externally excited by means of one or
several permanent magnet(s) (paragraph 0014).
With respect to claim 3, Birrer does not teach wherein the tape-shaped base-body (11) is woven
or knitted from textile material. Murray teaches wherein the tape-shaped base-body (fig. 1, 142;
paragraph 002; measuring tape can be fabric is woven/knitted) is woven or knitted from textile material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
have measuring tape be made of woven fabric, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a
worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a
matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 4, Birrer does not teach wherein the ferromagnetic material of the
position coding is inserted into, the base body, the ferromagnetic material having a plurality of warp
threads running longitudinally to the direction in which the base body extends and/or weft threads
running transversely to the direction in which the base body extends. It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have measuring tape be made
of woven fabric have thread patterns, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in
the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of
obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 5, Birrer does not teach wherein the ferromagnetic material of the
position coding is imprinted on a surface of the base body, by means of ferrite powder.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to imprint using ferrite powder, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in
the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of
obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 6, Birrer teaches wherein the position coding has a plurality of areas
(paragraph 0013/14; code unique to area of tape) which follow one after the other in the longitudinal
direction of the base body and are magnetically distinguishable by means of a magnetic sensor, each
area having a homogeneous dimension (inherent unless stated otherwise) in the longitudinal direction
(fig. 1, tape runs along 19, vertically which is longitudinal).
With respect to claim 7, Birrer teaches wherein the magnetically distinguishable areas are
realized for the respective interaction with permanent magnets (paragraph 0014) which are of different
polarity and which are disposed laterally to the measuring tape.
With respect to claim 8, Birrer does not teach wherein the measuring tape (10) has insulating
means (15a, 15b) which are made of a material which is not magnetically conductive, and which extend
transversely to the running direction (L) of the measuring tape and are disposed between the individual
magnetic areas and/or extend parallel to a lateral edge of the measuring tape. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have measuring
tape to have insulating material between magnetic sections, since it has been held to be within the
general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the
intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 9, Birrer teaches wherein the magnetically distinguishable areas
(paragraph 0014) each are realized by a homogeneous (inherent unless stated otherwise) meandering
design or arrangement of a ferromagnetic material.
With respect to claim 10, Birrer teaches wherein the magnetically distinguishable areas
(paragraph 0014) are disposed in an alternating manner, sequentially or in an absolutely encoded
manner in the longitudinal direction (fig. 1, tape runs along 19, vertically which is longitudinal) of the
base body.
With respect to claim 11, Birrer teaches wherein the base body has function and/or signal lines
which are incorporated (paragraph 0013), in the longitudinal direction (fig. 1, tape runs along 19,
vertically which is longitudinal) and which are realized in a non-force-absorbing manner.
With respect to claim 12, Birrer does not teach wherein the measuring tape has a cover layer
which is applied to the base body and covers the position coding and which is made of woven or knitted
textile material. Murray teaches wherein the measuring tape has a cover layer which is applied to the
base body and covers the position coding and which is made of woven or knitted textile material (fig. 1,
142; paragraph 002; measuring tape can be fabric is woven/knitted). It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have measuring tape be made of
woven fabric, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known
material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re
Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 13, Birrer teaches comprising a measuring tape (10) according claim1
and a sensor arrangement (fig. 1, 27) having at least one magnetic field sensor (fig. 1, 20) for
reading out the position coding of the measuring tape.
With respect to claim 14, Birrer teaches wherein the sensor arrangement (fig. 1, 27) has at least
one permanent magnet (paragraph 0014) for a temporary magnetization of the ferromagnetic material
of the position coding of the measuring tape, and wherein the magnetic field sensor (fig. 1, 20) is
realized for reading out (paragraph 0028) the temporary magnetic field generated in this process.
With respect to claim 15, Birrer teaches wherein the measuring system has at least one guide
rail (paragraph 0025) which is assigned to the measuring tape and which has permanent magnets
(paragraph 0014) of different polarity disposed laterally to the measuring tape.
With respect to claim 16, Birrer does not teach wherein the magnetic field sensor a plurality of
Hall sensors which are disposed in a row and which are disposed parallel to the running direction of the
measuring tape. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have plurality of hall sensors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the
essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co.,
193 USPQ 8.
With respect to claim 17, Birrer does not teach wherein the sensor arrangement has a flux
amplifier for the concentration of a magnetic field delivered by the measuring tape. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for position sensor has
a flux amplifier, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a
known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 18, Birrer does not teach wherein the flux amplifier has a metallic element
which is disposed parallel to the running direction of the measuring tape and which has a homogeneous
cross section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made for position sensor has a flux amplifier, since it has been held to be within the
general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the
intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 19, Birrer does not teach wherein the flux amplifier is disposed on a side
of the magnetic field sensor of the sensor arrangement facing away from the measuring tape. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for position
sensor has a flux amplifier, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to
select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design
choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 20, Birrer teaches an elevator system having an elevator shaft (paragraph
0025) and an elevator car (fig. 1, 11) movably disposed therein, said elevator system having a measuring
system (fig. 1, 21) for determining the position of the elevator car in the elevator shaft according to
claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/182026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s first argument is against the 112(b) is that “tape-shaped base body”, has no other reasonable interpretation. Examiner respectfully disagrees and believes its indefinite.
The applicant’s second argument against the 103 Rejection of Birrer in view of Murray, and that Murray is not relevant art. Murray art simply give more detail to a measuring tape. As measuring devices are used in wide array of fields and devices.
The applicant’s third argument against the 103 Rejection of Birrer in view of Murray, and that Birrer does not teach position coding which is capable of being read out by means of magnetic field sensor. Birrer teaches position coding (paragraph 0013 and 0028) and is read by sensor (fig. 1, 20).
The applicant’s fourth argument against the 103 Rejection of Birrer in view of Murray, and that person in skill would not consider Murray relevant to rejection. Birrer teaches a measuring tape read by sensor, and Murray is only brought in for difference in material of tape, which is obvious. With cloth/vinyl/fiberglass all being used besides metal.
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 ERICK DAVID GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-8395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri_8-5pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/ERICK D GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights