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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 3 and 4 that Enomoto only indicates 3D distance image sensors 1 that are installed separated by 120 degrees or 60 degrees, each of which would fail to directly face each of the side walls in a rectangular elevator shaft, which are separated by 90 degrees. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Enomoto fails to disclose "a plurality of 3D distance imaging sensors which are provided in the housing so as to directly face each of a plurality of side walls of a shaft of the elevator on a horizontal projection plane and which acquire 3D point group data," as recited by Claim 14. Similarly, Enomoto fails to disclose "a support to support the 3D data acquisition device in an upward facing state being a state where a measurement direction of the plurality of 3D distance imaging sensors directly faces each of the plurality of side walls of the shaft of the elevator on the horizontal projection plane," as recited by Claim 14.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In fact, Enomoto discloses 3D distance image sensors’ measurement pattern irradiated on the inner wall as pointed out on page 2, lines 1-10. Therefore, arguments are not persuasive.
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 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enomoto WO 2016/199850 A1 (a part of IDS).
Regarding claim 14, Enomoto discloses
A 3D data acquisition system (fig. 1) for an elevator, comprising: a 3D data acquisition device including a housing that constitutes an outer shell (see annotated fig. below), and a plurality of 3D distance imaging sensors (item 1) which are provided in the housing so as to directly face each of a plurality of side walls of a shaft (fig. 4A, item 11) of the elevator on a horizontal projection plane and which acquire 3D point group data (page 3, lines 80-114, page 5, lines 196-205); and a support (circumferential region where item 1 sits) to support the 3D data acquisition device in an upward facing state (vertical) and a laterally facing state (horizontal) (page 2, lines 38-52), the upward facing state being a state where a measurement direction (fig. 4A shows direction to the walls) of the plurality of 3D distance imaging sensors directly faces each of the plurality of side walls of the shaft of the elevator on the horizontal projection plane, and the laterally facing state being a state where a measurement direction of one of the plurality of 3D distance imaging sensors directly faces a floor surface (fig. 4A shows the sensors on the floor surface of the hoistway or the shaft) of the shaft on a vertical projection plane (page 2, lines 1-69).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
1002
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Enomoto discloses
, wherein the support rotatably supports the 3D data acquisition device with a rotation axis as a vertical direction (page 9, lines 346-350).
Regarding claim 17, Enomoto discloses, comprising a terminal (the light receiving unit) which receives 3D point group data from the 3D data acquisition device (page 4, lines 124-129).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto in a view of BARNEMAN et al. US 2009/0120734 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Enomoto does not disclose but BARNEMAN discloses, comprising a magnet which is provided on the support and which generates a magnetic force (a magnetic force is inherently generated by a magnet) [0054].
Therefore, 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 magnet on the support as disclosed by BARNEMAN in Enomoto’s teachings to fix the support device (see BARNEMAN’s [0054]).
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 20-22 are allowed.
Upon further consideration and in a view of the limitation, the prior art does not explicitly teach or fairly suggest alone or in combination of subject matter of “a plurality of light-emitters. each of which is provided on the plurality of edges of the housing at a position outside of a measurement range of each of the plurality of 3D distance imaging sensors and which emit light toward the measurement range of each of the plurality of 3D distance imaging sensors so that obstacles do not enter an irradiation range.”
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896