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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/2026 has been entered. The examiner withdraws claim objections and 112(b) rejections based on amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 8 that Huber and Fujitani do not teach Applicant submits that Fujitani does not teach that the sensor assembly is movably coupled to the mounting bracket. Fujitani provides no disclosure or suggestion of a movably connection between the sensor assembly and its mounting bracket. Rather, the sensor of Fujitani is rigidly fixed to guide rail via the frame 16 and alignment of the sensor 11 depends entirely on how the mounting frame 16 is clamped to an elevator guide rail. The sensor and mounting frame together form a fixed assembly, and Fujitani does not teach or suggest that any relative movement can occur therebetween.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the relative movement is accomplished via guide rails 9 (see updated claim rejection below for detail).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations (a locking mechanism for locking in claim 1, a locking mechanism is operable to lock in claim 16) in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUBER et al. US 2022/0003869 A1 in a view of FUJITANI JP2015020838A
Regarding claim 1, HUBER et al. disclose
An assembly (fig. 1, item 10) [0042] comprising: a sensor assembly (item 10) [0039]; and a position indicator (items 44 and 46a-b) affixed to the sensor assembly [0048] (fig. 1 shows item 10 is coupled to items 44 and 46a-b via item 36) and operable to emit a visual light pattern [0048], the position indicator being movable with the sensor assembly to indicate to a user when the sensor assembly is in a desired mounting position (desired alignment) [0053].
HUBER discloses the assembly but does not explicitly say “associated with detection of a human within an elevator hoistway”. However, FUJITANI discloses the device (fig. 2, item 11) disposed in the hoistway (item 1 in fig. 1) used to detect the human [0014, 0016];
a mounting bracket (frame), the sensor assembly being movably coupled (via the guide rails 9) to the mounting bracket; and a locking mechanism (fixing means with fastener 17) for locking a position of the sensor assembly relative to the mounting bracket [0017-0019, 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor disclosed by HUBER to be disposed within an elevator which is used to detect a human and a mounting bracket along with a locking mechanism as disclosed by FUJITANI because FUJITANI discloses the laser type sensor which is typically used to detect human and to perform mounting operation [0016, 0026, 0027].
Regarding claim 2, HUBER et al. disclose
, wherein a position of the visual light pattern indicates when the sensor assembly is in the desired mounting position [0053].
Regarding claim 3, HUBER et al. disclose
, wherein the visible light pattern emitted by the position indicator is aligned with a target (desired alignment) when the sensor assembly is in the desired mounting position [0053].
Regarding claim 4, HUBER et al. disclose, wherein the visual light pattern includes a plurality of dots and/or lines [0059].
Regarding claim 5, a combination of HUBER and FUJITANI does not explicitly say “wherein the visual light pattern includes a single point”. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HUBER visual light pattern to include a single point because it allows easy interpretation and lower cost and design.
Regarding claim 6, a combination of HUBER and FUJITANI does not explicitly say “wherein the visual light pattern includes alphanumeric characters”. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HUBER visual light pattern to include alphanumeric characters for better troubleshooting.
Regarding claim 7, HUBER et al. disclose, wherein the visual light pattern is configured to change color when the sensor assembly is arranged at or near the desired mounting position [0053].
Regarding claim 8, HUBER et al. disclose, wherein the visual light pattern includes alphanumeric characters when the sensor assembly is arranged at or near the desired mounting position [0053]. A combination of HUBER and FUJITANI does not explicitly say “wherein the visual light pattern includes alphanumeric characters”. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HUBER visual light pattern to include alphanumeric characters for better troubleshooting.
Regarding claim 9, HUBER et al. disclose, wherein the position indicator is removably affixed to the sensor assembly (see fig. 1 for detail).
Regarding claim 10, HUBER et al. disclose, wherein the sensor assembly includes a connecting member (item 36), the position indicator being directly coupled to the connecting member [0042].
Regarding claim 12, HUBER et al. disclose discloses at least one device (spirit label) for detecting a relative position of the mounting bracket to at least one of a horizontal or vertical plane [0017] (The phrase “the mounting bracket to at least one of a horizontal or vertical plane” is an inherent part to measure an orientation).
Regarding claim 13, HUBER et al. disclose, wherein the sensor assembly further comprises a sensor, the sensor includes at least one of a LIDAR sensor, a millimeter wave RADAR sensor and an RGBD camera [0048].
Regarding claim 14, FUJITANI discloses
An elevator system [0010] including the assembly of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 15, FUJITANI discloses, wherein the elevator system further comprises: a hoistway (item 1); an elevator car (item 3) and a counterweight configured to travel in the hoistway; an elevator pit (item 7) located at a bottom of the hoistway; and, wherein the sensor assembly is mounted at one or more of the elevator car, the counterweight, adjacent to the ladder, within the elevator pit, or to a wall of the hoistway [0021].
A combination of HUBER and FUJITANI does not disclose “a ladder extending from the elevator pit”. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify HUBER teachings to include a ladder extending from the elevator pit to provide an access point for entering and exiting the pit.
Regarding claim 16, HUBER et al. disclose
A method of installing a sensor assembly (fig. 1, item 10) [0042] comprising: attaching a sensor assembly to a mounting surface of the elevator system [0048]; and aligning a visual light pattern generated by a position indicator (items 44 and 46a-b) coupled to the sensor assembly with to a target (desired alignment) to locate the sensor assembly at the desired mounting position (alignment) relative to the mounting surface [0048, 0053].
HUBER discloses the sensor assembly but does not explicitly say “within an area to be monitored of an elevator system”. However, FUJITANI discloses the device (fig. 2, item 11) disposed in the hoistway (item 1 in fig. 1) which is within area to be monitored [0014, 0016]; wherein the sensor assembly is attached to the mounting surface via a mounting bracket (via a frame), the sensor assembly being movably (via guide rails 9) coupled to the mounting bracket; and a locking mechanism (fixing means with fastener 17) is operable to lock a position of the sensor assembly relative to the mounting bracket [0017-0019, 0026, 0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor disclosed by HUBER to be disposed within an elevator in order to monitor to detect a human and using a mounting bracket along with a locking mechanism as disclosed by FUJITANI because FUJITANI discloses the laser type sensor which is typically used to detect human [0016] and performs mounting operation safely and efficiently [FUJITANI’s 0026 and 0027].
Regarding claim 17, HUBER et al. disclose
locking the sensor assembly at the desired mounting position [0053].
Regarding claim 18, FUJITANI discloses
, further comprising leveling the mounting bracket (frame) about the mounting surface.
Regarding claim 19, FUJITANI discloses
detecting, by the sensor assembly, a person in the area to be monitored; and upon detection of a person in the area to be monitored, the sensor assembly initiating opening a safety chain to disable motion of an elevator car [0031].
Regarding claim 20, HUBER et al. disclose
disconnecting the position indicator from the sensor assembly once the sensor assembly is located the at the desired mounting position [0058] (It is understandable that item 44 can be disconnected because it was shipped from the factory due to calibration requirement).
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 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
