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.
Claims 1-20 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.
With respect to claims 1, 12, and 18, it is unclear of what is meant by “when a drop between the reflector and the sensor is less than a threshold distance, (1) the reflector substantially reflects the laser beam to the sensor and (2) the sensor senses the laser beam, and, when the drop is not less than the threshold distance, (1) the reflector does not substantially reflect the laser beam to the sensor and (2) the sensor does not sense the laser beam.”, of what “a drop” is.
With respect to claim 20, it is unclear of what is meant by “wherein the height is of nor more than approximately 0.50 inch.” It is assumed by examiner that “nor” is meant to be not more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being taught by Hitachi (EP 2583928 from ids).
With respect to claim 1, Hitachi teaches an elevator level warning system comprising:
a controller (fig. 1, 1) coupled to and powered by a power source (paragraph 0018);
a sensor (fig. 1, 30) board coupled to the controller and having at least one sensor mount (inherent) connected to (i) a laser that is capable of producing a laser beam and (ii) a sensor that is capable of sensing the laser beam (paragraph 0024; photoelectric/beam sensor); and
a reflector (fig. 1, 31a) capable of reflecting the laser beam to the sensor,
wherein the reflector is oriented with respect to the laser and sensor such that:
when a drop between the reflector and the sensor is less than a threshold distance, (1) the reflector substantially reflects the laser beam to the sensor (paragraph 0022/23; car at predetermined position and measured) and (2) the sensor senses the laser beam, and,
when the drop is not less than the threshold distance, (1) the reflector does not substantially reflect the laser beam to the sensor and (2) the sensor does not sense the laser beam (paragraph 0022/23; car at predetermined position and measured, not in ranged, doesn’t register).
With respect to claim 7, Hitachi teaches wherein the reflector comprises a structured reflector (inherent).
With respect to claim 12, Hitachi teaches elevator level warning system, for use with an elevator system having a landing (which defines a landing plane and has a landing front edge) and a front cab-floor edge, comprising:
a controller (fig. 1, 1) coupled to and powered by a power source (paragraph 0018);
a sensor (fig. 1, 30) board coupled to the controller and having at least one sensor mount connected to (i) a laser that is capable of producing a laser beam and (ii) a sensor that is capable of sensing the laser beam (paragraph 0024; photoelectric/beam sensor); and
a reflector (fig. 1, 31a) capable of reflecting the laser beam to the sensor; wherein (1) the laser and sensor are positioned with respect to the front cab-floor edge, (2) the reflector is positioned with respect to the landing front edge, and (3) the reflector is oriented with respect to the laser and sensor, such that:
when a drop between the front cab-floor edge and the landing plane is less than a threshold distance, (A) the reflector substantially reflects the laser beam to the sensor and (B) the sensor senses the laser beam (paragraph 0022/23; car at predetermined position and measured), and,
when the drop is not less than the threshold distance, (A) the reflector does not substantially reflect the laser beam to the sensor and (B) the sensor does not sense the laser beam (paragraph 0022/23; car at predetermined position and measured, not in ranged, doesn’t register).
With respect to claim 15, Hitachi teaches wherein the reflector is a structured reflector comprising a reflecting surface having a height (fig. 1, 31a height).
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) 2-6, 8-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi (EP 2583928 from ids).
With respect to claim 2, Hitachi does not teach wherein, when the reflector does not substantially reflect the laser beam to the sensor: the sensor board relays a NOT SENSING signal to the controller, and the controller receives the NOT SENSING signal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor to register NOT SENSING signal, 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 3, Hitachi does not teach wherein, when the controller receives the NOT SENSING signal, the controller activates an indicator coupled to the controller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor to register NOT SENSING signal, 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, Hitachi does not teach wherein the indicator comprises a visual indicator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor to have visual indicator, 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, Hitachi does not teach wherein the indicator comprises an audio indicator.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor to have audio indicator, 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, Hitachi does not teach wherein the audio indicator comprises a voice annunciator configured to deliver a message when activated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor to have voice indicator, 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 8, Hitachi wherein the structured reflector comprises: a reflecting surface having a height (fig. 1, 31a height),
Hitachi does not teach an oblique surface; and a front non-reflecting surface connected to the reflecting surface by the oblique surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for reflector to have oblique surface, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 9, Hitachi does not teach wherein the height is approximately twice the threshold distance.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor height to be twice the threshold, 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 10, Hitachi does not teach wherein the reflective surface is partially covered by a reflective tape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for plate to use reflective tape, 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 11, Hitachi does not teach wherein the sensor is configured to sense the laser beam substantially to the exclusion of other light sources.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor was made to only sense laser light, 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, Hitachi does not teach wherein, when the reflector does not substantially reflect the laser beam to the sensor, the controller activates an indicator coupled to the controller.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for reflector activates indicator of operation, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
With respect to claim 14, Hitachi does not teach wherein the indicator comprises an audio indicator configured to deliver a message when activated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor to have audio indicator, 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 16, Hitachi does not teach wherein the height is approximately twice the threshold distance.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor height to be twice the threshold, 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 17, Hitachi does not teach wherein the threshold distance is less than or equal to approximately 0.25 inch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have specific threshold distance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 18, Hitachi does not teach wherein the threshold distance is less than or equal to approximately 0.13 inch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have specific threshold distance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 19, Hitachi teaches a structured reflector for use in an elevator level warning system, comprising:
a reflecting surface (fig. 1, 31a has height) having a height and capable of reflecting a laser beam (paragraph 0022);
Hitachi does not teach a first oblique surface; and a first front non-reflecting surface connected to the reflecting surface by the first oblique surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for reflector to have oblique surface, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 20, Hitachi does not teach a second oblique surface; a second front non-reflecting surface connected to the reflecting surface by the second oblique surface; a left face; and a right face; wherein the structured reflector is shaped substantially as a right prism, wherein the left face and the right face are bases of the right prism; and wherein the height is of not more than approximately 0.50 inch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for reflector and sensors have oblique surface, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
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