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 argues that Terry et al fails to teach the claimed placement/locations for the sensor/light/reflector combination. Terry et al explicitly teaches the claimed functional mechanism and structure of the recited combination of elements. While the preferred physical location (mounting configuration) of these components could be considered a routine design choice among a plurality of other options in the art, the examiner is not relying solely on a design choice argument.
Instead, the examiner will introduce a secondary reference, US Publication 2008/0156591, to establish that the claimed placement is a well-known preferred alternative in the elevator systems. The secondary reference explicitly teaches an elevator car monitoring system where optical sensors and target areas (reflectors) are positioned at the door sill, including mounting to the bottom edge of the landing door and the bottom edge of the car door to detect door misalignment.
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) 1-10, 13-15, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry et al (US Patent 9399562) and Tracey (US Publication 2008/0156591).
Claim 1, Terry et al teaches an elevator door monitoring system comprising: a main board comprising an electronic controller 38 coupled to a power source 58 and a safety circuit 54; and at least one sensor 62 coupled to the controller 38 and having a sensor mount that can be coupled to an elevator 30 (fig. 3) or elevator door (fig. 4), wherein the sensor is capable of producing a laser beam 66 by using a laser diode (col. 3 lines 63-65) , detecting the laser beam, and reflecting the received beam. The sensor 62 communicates with a processor 70 which determines whether or not a light signal is outputted by the sensor and indicates an unsafe condition if it is not detected (see the relationship between sensor 62 and processor 70 in col. 4 lines 4-67 and col. 5 lines 1-21).
Terry et al teaches the functional mechanism wherein a sensor/light combination detects a path obstruction or alignment variation to signal the main system to stop operation. However, Terry et al does not explicitly teach mounting the sensor mount to the bottom edge of the floor and mounting the reflector to the bottom edge of a door configured to slide within a sill of the floor.
Tracey teaches an elevator door position and alignment monitoring system where optical sensor elements and cooperating reflective target are explicitly positioned at the door sill boundary, including mounting sensor component near the bottom edge of the floor landing/sill and cooperative elements to the bottom edge of the sliding panel to detect door misalignment within the sill tracks (see for example paragraphs 0027-0030).
It would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the door monitoring system of Terry et al by arranging the mounting the sensor components and reflective elements at the bottom edge of the floor and the bottom edge of the door sliding within the sill as taught by Tracey, since implementing this specific placement would optimize error detection directly at the location where misalignment is most likely to occur.
Claims 2 and 13, the examiner takes official notice that Category 5 twisted pair cabling is standard in the industry, it is commonly used for transmitting data between a plurality of sensors and central controller since it provides reliable noise-resistance communication.
Claims 3 and 14, since no specific description is given with respect to the “mount”, we can see in the different views of the elevator system described by Terry et al that the optical sensor 62 is mounted on different areas of the elevator.
Claims 4, 15, and 19, Terry et al describes sensor 62 as a laser diode which is considered a continuous-wave output element.
Claims 5 and 18, Terry et al describes processor 70 receiving the output signal from sensor 62 to determine the speed or position of the elevator car. Therefore, the processor is capable of determining the amplitude of the signal.
Claims 6-7, Terry et al describes in figures 3-5 different areas where the laser beam can be reflected on.
Claims 8/10/20, It would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use different type of sensors such as optical sensors or fiber optic sensors to measure temperature, since they provide non-invasive, accurate, and reliable temperature readings.
Claims 9, 17, and 21, the difference between claim 1 and claims 9 /17/21 is that claims require the use of a plurality of sensors. Terry et al describes in fig. 6 a plurality of optical sensors 62. The threshold used in the determination of the NOT SENSING signal is programmed based on the intended used of the system.
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 Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
