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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 5/14/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search for one species is likely to return results for the other species because the operation of the radar device is the same across all of the species. This is not found persuasive because searches for the details of one species within the field of radar mounted relative to a floor surface are specific to that species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/14/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 80 (paragraph [0046]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 13 and 16 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 13 and 16 require a raised floor system “complies with DIN EN 12825”. The specification merely repeats the feature of the claim without establishing what DIN EN 12825 is or what is considered “compliance” in the context of the invention. The metes and bounds of the claims are indefinite because it is unclear what is required of a floor panel (claim 13) or support (claim 16) of a floor system as claimed for the floor system to be deemed compliant. This is an apparent industry standard specific to Germany and is not incorporated in the application as filed. However, even were it included in the instant application, upon cursory review the standard is found to have different requirements depending on the intended environment of a given flooring installation, as well as itself incorporating by reference requirements from other standards. Generic “compliance” depends on factors outside of the claimed invention, including the environment and is subject to revisions of standards. Further, as written the claimed apparatus does not actually include the raised floor system, but merely a floor panel or support that is “part of” a compliant raised floor system, introducing additional ambiguity as to what limitation is imposed on the claimed invention itself. The claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the scope of the invention.
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) 1-2, 6, 8-12, 14-15, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takenaga (JP-2001206651-A).
Regarding claims 1-2, 6, 10, 12, and 21, Takenaga discloses an apparatus (Figures 1, 6, 7) and corresponding method for detecting an object (20) on a raised floor panel having a bottom side and a walkable top side opposite the bottom side (Fig. 7), the apparatus comprising: a holder that is mounted on the bottom side of the floor panel (illustrated), and a radar device (1) configured to emit a radar signal (via antenna 2), detect a radar echo reflected from the object (via antenna 3), and provide a data signal based on the radar echo (the analog echo signal is inherently converted to a “data signal” prior to processing by signal processor 15), wherein the holder is configured to hold the radar device (Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 8-9, Takenaga discloses the holder includes an aperture configured to block or redirect a portion of the radar signal ([0042]: “As a method of making the detection area of the impulse radar 1 rectangular, not only the directivity of the transmission antenna 2 and the reception antenna 3 is adjusted, but also the partition on the long side is made of metal as shown in Figure 14”).
Regarding claim 11, Takenaga discloses the floor panel is transparent to the radar signal and echo (flooring is “resin” per [0026]; clearly the signals must pass through the floor surface).
Regarding claims 14-15, Takenaga discloses a support of the raised floor that is at least in some areas transparent to the radar signal and echo (per [0042], “the partition plate on the short side” (Fig. 14)) is resin.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raymond (US 2020/0403392).
While it appears implicit that the holder of Takenaga is attached with fastening means, Takenaga does not describe fastening. Raymond discloses a sensor holder (108) for raised floors mounted on the floor panel and attached with fastening means (110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the apparatus of Takenaga to use a holder and fastening means for the radar as shown by Raymond so as to allow for a retrofit of existing tiles rather than replacement for radar transmissive material (Raymond [0026]).
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaga as applied to claims 12 and 15.
While what is specifically required by claims 13 and 16 is highly unclear as demonstrated above, as best can be determined DIN EN 12825 refers to a building standard in Germany. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the floor panels and supports of Takenaga in compliance with DIN EN 12825 with a reasonable expectation of success so that the system may be installed in buildings where floors are mandated by regulation to comply.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderholm et al. (US 2019/0096220).
Regarding claims 17-19, Takenaga discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as shown above and a data processing device (15 and/or 26) is primarily concerned with presence detection of objects in vicinity of an elevator. Takenaga is not found to disclose a processing device that determines distance, direction, speed, or type of the object. Anderholm discloses a radar used for presence detection at elevators ([0148], [0171]) which also determines a type of object to distinguish between human and non-living objects by tracking movement of the object ([0150]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Takenaga to distinguish between living and non-living objects as disclosed by Anderholm with a reasonable expectation of success so as to avoid false elevator calls for non-living objects.
Additionally concerning claim 19, Takenaga discloses tracking a different form of movement of the object (Figure 11A, [0035]-[0036]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaga in view of Anderholm as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Schwendimann et al. (DE 102016013940 A1).
Takenaga discloses storing a frequently updated reference waveform of a signal received by the receiving antenna when there is no object present and using a comparison of the reference waveform to newly received waveforms in order to identify the presence of an object ([0029], [0043], [0044]). Takenaga does not indicate that there is a radar reflector mounted facing the top side of the floor panel to provide the reference waveform. Schwendimann discloses presence detection radar (117) also using a frequently updated reference waveform in a similar manner, where a radar reflector mounted facing the radar provides the reference when an object is not present (Fig. 5, [0073], [0074], [0087]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Takenaga to use a radar reflector mounted opposite the floor surface to generate a reference waveform as demonstrated by Schwendimann in order to provide a high signal to noise reference, making disruptions by objects easier to recognize especially in instances where the object does not produce a strong reflection back to the radar ([0009]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to radar or other sensors or antennas mounted relative to a floor surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M, W, Th, Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646