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 received 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
307
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reminds to the Applicant that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. See MPEP 2111.01. Moreover, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With these principles in mind, Examiner maintains the position that Balzer-Apke does disclose the invention recited in instant claim 1 including the limitation (i.e., a second controlled current source coupled with the processor and configured to output a second current corresponding to the level signal) in question.
Specifically, with the BRI to the claim, Examiner considers that Balzer-Apke’s “the power supply of the control itself” (13 in Fig. 1) encompasses a power supply which supplies power to the control board A (e.g., indicated by the “arrow” pointing to the box A in Fig. 1). By inherency, this power supply (col. 3, lines 53-56: “on the other hand the power supply of the control itself. Via data line 14 the microprocessors 2,3 are in active relation with microprocessor 4 responsible for control and diagnosis”) is essential for converting and regulating electrical energy to ensure that electronic devices (such as microprocessors 2, 3 and 4) operate efficiently and safely, and through which the microprocessor (4) performs diagnosing functions (col. 2, lines 16-20) and generates the digital outputs (32 in Fig. 1) for controlling functions, e.g. the one of energy saving (col. 3, lines 65-67). As such, Balzer-Apke’s “the power supply of the control itself” (13) is indeed coupled with the processor (4) and configured to output a second current (i.e., the electric current for driving the operation of the control board A) corresponding (i.e., being related to) to a level signal (32 in Fig. 1), wherein the level signal corresponding to one of the encoder output values (col. 3, lines 65-67). Put it differently, without this second controlled current source (13 in Fig. 1), the microprocessor (4) in the control board A would NOT be able to operate to generate the output signal, since the control board A itself does not include any additional power supply such as a battery, etc. Therefore, Applicant’s argument in this regard is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
202
695
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With the BRI to the claim, Examiner considers that the term “resistive network encoder” may simply refer to a type of logic circuit that converts multiple input signals into a smaller number of digital outputs. As such, Balzer-Apke’s optoelectronic coupler inputs 17 (Fig. 1), which connects the contacts 18, 19, 20 of safety elements 21, 22, 23 to the microprocessor (4) reads on the claimed “resistive network encoder” as recited in instant claim 1, wherein each of the encoder output values corresponds to one of combinations of states of the plurality of protective switches (Balzer-Apke, col. 3, lines 57-64). Applicant’s reliance upon the specification (e.g., para. [0025]) in this regard is noted. However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, Applicant’s argument in this regard is not persuasive.
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed by the claim mapping as set forth in sections 3-6 below in this Office Action. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Balzer-Apke et al. (US 6230871 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Balzer-Apke discloses a safety chain device (Figs. 1-4) for an escalator (Abstract), characterized in that, comprising: a safety chain (col. 3, lines 52-56) including a plurality of protective switches (21, 22, 23) connected in series, each of the protective switches is configured to switch from a first state to a second state in the event of abnormal operation of a respective corresponding drive chain (col. 3, lines 57-64); a resistive network encoder (17 Fig. 1) coupled with the safety chain and having a plurality of encoder output values, each of the encoder output values corresponds to one of combinations of states of the plurality of protective switches (col. 3, lines 57-64); a processor (4) coupled with the resistive network encoder (Fig. 1) and configured to output a level signal (32) corresponding to one of the encoder output values (col. 3, lines 65-67); a first controlled current source (12) coupled with the safety chain and configured to output a first current corresponding to a current flowing through the safety chain (Fig. 1); and a second controlled current source (13) coupled with the processor and configured to output a second current corresponding to the level signal (col. 3, lines 52-56).
Regarding claim 9, Balzer-Apke discloses a safety protection system for an escalator (Abstract), characterized in that, comprising: a safety chain device (Figs. 1-4) comprising: a safety chain (col. 3, lines 52-56) including a plurality of protective switches (21, 22, 23) coupled in series, each protective switch is configured to switch from a first state to a second state in the event of abnormal operation of a respective corresponding drive chain (col. 3, lines 57-64); a resistive network encoder (17 Fig. 1) having a plurality of encoder output values, each of the encoder output values corresponds to one of combinations of states of the plurality of protective switches (col. 3, lines 57-64); a processor (4 Fig. 1) coupled with the resistive network encoder and configured to output a level signal (e.g., 32) corresponding to one of the encoder output values (col. 3, lines 65-67); a first controlled current source (12) coupled with the safety chain and configured to output a first current corresponding to a current flowing through the safety chain (Fig. 1); and a second controlled current source (13) coupled with the processor (4) and configured to output a second current corresponding to the level signal (col. 3, lines 52-56); a control unit (e.g., a device for controlling functions the one of energy saving) coupled (via the processor 4) with the first controlled current source and the second controlled current source and configured to perform corresponding safety protection operations in response to the first current and the second current (col. 1, lines 52-62; col. 3, lines 54-67).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Balzer-Apke discloses: wherein the first state and the second state are a closed state and an open state respectively (col. 3, lines 60-64).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Balzer-Apke discloses: wherein ends of the safety chain are coupled to a power supply (12) and an input end of the first controlled current source respectively (col. 3, lines 52-54).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Balzer-Apke discloses: wherein the resistive network encoder comprises a plurality of paired input ends (Fig. 1), and each of the paired input ends is coupled to both ends of one of the plurality of protective switches (21, 22, 23).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Balzer-Apke discloses: wherein the first controlled current source and the second controlled current source are current-controlled current sources (col. 3, lines 52-56).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Balzer-Apke discloses: wherein the first controlled current source is configured to output a current k times the current flowing through the safety chain when the plurality of protective switches are all in the closed state and to output a zero current when at least one of the plurality of protective switches is in the open state (col. 3, lines 57-64: In case of a malfunction in the region of the driving motor 1 … are connected to contacts 18, 19, 20 of further safety elements 21, 22, 23, for instance emergency shutdown contacts).
Regarding claim 7, Balzer-Apke discloses: wherein output ends (e.g., the serial interface 5, the local peripheral bus 6, the digital interface 32/33) of the first controlled current source and the second controlled current source are coupled with an external device (e.g., a device for controlling functions the one of energy saving) via a signal transmission cable (Fig. 1; see also claim 8).
Regarding claim 8, Balzer-Apke discloses: wherein the processor is further configured to analyze the states of the protective switches in real time (col. 1, lines 52-62; col. 3, lines 54-56 and 65-67).
Regarding claim 11, Balzer-Apke discloses: wherein the control unit comprises: a safety triggering mechanism coupled with an output end (e.g., the serial interface 5, the local peripheral bus 6, the digital interface 32/33) of the first controlled current source and configured to cut off a power supply from a main power supply to the escalator in response to a current output by the first controlled current source when at least one of the plurality of protective switches is in the open state (col. 3, lines 57-64: In case of a malfunction in the region of the driving motor 1 … are connected to contacts 18, 19, 20 of further safety elements 21, 22, 23, for instance emergency shutdown contacts); a microcontroller coupled with an output end of the second controlled current source (col. 3, lines 52-56).
Regarding claim 16, Balzer-Apke discloses: wherein further comprising a signal transmission cable (e.g., any of the transmission cables connecting the microcontroller with the safety triggering mechanism), the output end of the first controlled current source and the output end of the second controlled current source are coupled with the safety triggering mechanism and the microcontroller, respectively, via the signal transmission cable (Fig. 1 and related text).
Regarding claim 18, Balzer-Apke discloses: wherein the safety triggering mechanism is a relay (col. 3, lines 57-64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balzer-Apke et al.
Regarding claim 17, Balzer-Apke is silent on: wherein the control unit further comprises an analog-to-digital converter coupled with the output end of the second controlled current source via the signal transmission cable, the analog-to-digital converter is configured to convert an analog voltage signal corresponding to the second current into a digital signal and output the digital signal to the microcontroller.
Examiner takes official notice that an analog-to-digital is well-known in the art. Since Balzer-Apke teaches interactions between analog signal and digital processors (e.g., 2, 3, 4), it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a well-known A/D convertor into the system of Balzer-Apke to assist signal/data conversion and processing, wherever needed. The merely application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would be obvious and involve only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 19 is 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.
Reasons for Allowance
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 19 is the inclusion of the limitation: wherein the resistive network encoder includes a plurality of input ends (Al-An) constituting a plurality of pairs of input ends, and wherein each pair of input ends is coupled to both ends of a corresponding one of the plurality of protective switches via respective resistors (R1-Rn) to sample a state of the corresponding protective switch. It is this limitation found in the claim, in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in independent claim 1, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes claim 19 distinguish over the prior art.
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANCHUN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5981. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571)270-7938. 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.
/JIANCHUN QIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights