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 filed 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12 and 14-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1, 9 and 17, Applicant argues that Saito does not disclose the claimed emitter and receiver being respectively outside of and connected to outermost teeth of the combplate, and further that they are connected to brackets which are connected to skirt guards. In response, Examiner would like to make reference to Page 2, lines 83-88 of Saito wherein it is disclosed that the light emitting element 25 and light receiving element 26 are connected to the tube in a space portion of the guards 8 so that the bracket 27, light emitting element 25 and light receiving element 26 are connected to the tube 22 via sealing member 28. Therefore, the light emitting element 25 and light receiving element 26 are interconnected to the comb and its outermost pieces by the tube 22, which connects all of the elements together. Examiner would like to make note that the Applicant has not specified a direct connection method or fastener type, and therefore while the claims are read 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, the broad claim language of “respectively outside of and connected to” is taken at its broadest reasonable interpretation. Further, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the emitter and receiver of Saito directly connected to the outside of the outermost teeth, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The direct connection of the emitter and receiver of Saito to the outside of the outermost teeth would also be an obvious matter of design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that the connection as claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose differently than that of Saito, and it appears that the invention of Saito would perform equally as well with the connection of the emitter and receiver as claimed.
Regarding Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 14-16 and 18-20, Applicant does not provide any arguments based upon the claims respective rejections other than to state these claims should be traversed under the independent claims 1, 9 and 17.
For the foregoing reasons, the claims stand rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willnauer (European Patent Application EP 1231177A2) in view of Saito (Japanese Patent Application JPH04153195A).
Regarding Claim 1, Willnauer discloses an escalator system, comprising: a combplate comprising teeth arranged in a line extending in a width-wise direction (Figure 1: Escalator 10 and Comb segment 12); a moving step comprising grooves and being drivable to pass by the combplate at a step-combplate interface at which, when each tooth is correctly positioned, each tooth passes through a corresponding groove(Page 2, lines 4-7: “The comb segment 12 has a plurality of teeth 14 which are spaced equidistant from each other. The teeth are accordingly arranged at a pitch corresponding to the pitch of the grooves of the surface of the associated escalator step. At both ends of the comb segments, the teeth are spaced apart from the associated end by half a grid dimension, so that when a plurality of comb segments are joined together, the grid dimension is maintained.”); and a detection system comprising an emitter and receiver pair and being configured to determine whether a signal pattern, which is derived from communications of the emitter and receiver pair and which is partially reflective of conditions of the teeth, is indicative of at least one tooth being incorrectly positioned (Page 3, lines 44-54: “The exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 2 differs from the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 in particular in that a sound transmitter 30 is provided in addition to the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 is arranged at a significant distance from the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 intermittently introduces a characteristic sound spectrum into the comb segment 12. For example, a sine wave having a frequency in the ultrasonic range tuned to the resonant frequency of the teeth 14 may be introduced. The sound spectrum thus present is permanently recorded by the sound sensor 24, which in this embodiment is designed as an ultrasonic sensor. In the evaluation circuit, the measured sound spectrum is compared with the standard sound spectrum of an intact comb segment. If one tooth or several teeth are broken off, a different sound spectrum is produced, whether because the transmission of sound is impeded or whether a tooth stub transmits higher-frequency oscillations. By detecting the differences, the sound spectrum is used at the sensor to distinguish whether the comb segment 12 is intact or not.”) wherein the emitter and receiver pair comprises an emitter and a receiver arranged proximate to a plane of the step-combplate interface (Figure 2: Sound transmitter 30 and sound sensor 24) .
However, Willnauer does not teach wherein the Emitter and receiver pair comprises an emitter and a receiver arranged respectively outside of and connected to outermost teeth of the combplate in the width-wise direction at opposite sides of the step combplate interface.
Saito discloses a similar escalator system wherein the Emitter and receiver pair comprises an emitter and a receiver arranged respectively outside of and connected to outermost teeth of the combplate in the width-wise direction at opposite sides of the step combplate interface (Figure 2: light-emitting element 25 and a light-83 receiving element 26 are opposite to one another arranged outside the outermost teeth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Willnauer to include the arrangement of the emitter and receiver as taught by Saito. The motivation for the modification would have been to allow for an escalator with an easy to assemble and install detection bar and detector, which is capable of stopping the conveyor immediately when the occupant is displaces, providing safety for the passengers (Page 1, lines 50-56).
Regarding Claim 2, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the escalator system according to Claim 1, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses wherein the signal pattern is a sonic pattern (Page 3, lines 44-54: “The exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 2 differs from the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 in particular in that a sound transmitter 30 is provided in addition to the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 is arranged at a significant distance from the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 intermittently introduces a characteristic sound spectrum into the comb segment 12. For example, a sine wave having a frequency in the ultrasonic range tuned to the resonant frequency of the teeth 14 may be introduced. The sound spectrum thus present is permanently recorded by the sound sensor 24, which in this embodiment is designed as an ultrasonic sensor. In the evaluation circuit, the measured sound spectrum is compared with the standard sound spectrum of an intact comb segment. If one tooth or several teeth are broken off, a different sound spectrum is produced, whether because the transmission of sound is impeded or whether a tooth stub transmits higher-frequency oscillations. By detecting the differences, the sound spectrum is used at the sensor to distinguish whether the comb segment 12 is intact or not.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the escalator system according to Claim 1, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses wherein the emitter and receiver pair comprises an ultrasonic emitter (Page 3, lines 44-54: “The exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 2 differs from the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 in particular in that a sound transmitter 30 is provided in addition to the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 is arranged at a significant distance from the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 intermittently introduces a characteristic sound spectrum into the comb segment 12. For example, a sine wave having a frequency in the ultrasonic range tuned to the resonant frequency of the teeth 14 may be introduced. The sound spectrum thus present is permanently recorded by the sound sensor 24, which in this embodiment is designed as an ultrasonic sensor. In the evaluation circuit, the measured sound spectrum is compared with the standard sound spectrum of an intact comb segment. If one tooth or several teeth are broken off, a different sound spectrum is produced, whether because the transmission of sound is impeded or whether a tooth stub transmits higher-frequency oscillations. By detecting the differences, the sound spectrum is used at the sensor to distinguish whether the comb segment 12 is intact or not.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the escalator system according to Claim 1, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses wherein at least one of a frequency, an amplitude and a shape of the signal pattern is indicative of the at least one tooth being incorrectly positioned (Page 3, lines 44-54: “The exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 2 differs from the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 in particular in that a sound transmitter 30 is provided in addition to the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 is arranged at a significant distance from the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 intermittently introduces a characteristic sound spectrum into the comb segment 12. For example, a sine wave having a frequency in the ultrasonic range tuned to the resonant frequency of the teeth 14 may be introduced. The sound spectrum thus present is permanently recorded by the sound sensor 24, which in this embodiment is designed as an ultrasonic sensor. In the evaluation circuit, the measured sound spectrum is compared with the standard sound spectrum of an intact comb segment. If one tooth or several teeth are broken off, a different sound spectrum is produced, whether because the transmission of sound is impeded or whether a tooth stub transmits higher-frequency oscillations. By detecting the differences, the sound spectrum is used at the sensor to distinguish whether the comb segment 12 is intact or not.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the escalator system according to Claim 1, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses wherein the detection system is further configured to determine whether the signal pattern is one of: indicative of the at least one tooth being incorrectly positioned such that the combplate requires attention and no escalator shutdown is warranted, and indicative of the at least one tooth being incorrectly positioned such that the escalator shutdown is warranted (Page 2, lines 15-20: “According to a further modified embodiment of the solution according to the invention, it is provided to introduce sound into the comb plate and/or into the comb segments and to infer the integrity of all teeth via the sound spectrum transmitted or reflected by the comb segments. For this purpose, the evaluation circuit is designed in a special manner. The sound spectrum of a comb segment is acquired in an intact form and the sound spectrum of a comb segment with broken-off tooth is acquired in a short time. By detecting the differences, a number of criteria are established which are significant for broken off comb segment teeth.” And further page 1, lines 21-24: “On the other hand, it is important that the comb segments exist in the proper state, merely to ensure the safety of the passengers. For this purpose, during each maintenance of the escalator or moving walkway, precise monitoring of all comb segments, in particular also of the tooth roots, is usually carried out in order to determine whether a failure is already suggested in the future, possibly due to bent teeth or cracks or the like.”, wherein different criteria of the evaluation of the comb tooth could include cracks/bends for future failures, or active failures such as breaks which could follow different shutdown/maintenance criteria).
Regarding Claim 8, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the escalator system according to Claim 7, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses wherein the detection system is further configured to execute the escalator shutdown (Page 1, lines 46-48: “Therefore, the object of the invention is to provide an escalator or moving walkway according to the preamble of claim 1, which allows reliable breakage monitoring of comb teeth and also allows extended maintenance intervals.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Willnauer discloses an escalator system, comprising: a combplate comprising teeth arranged in a line extending in a width-wise direction(Figure 1: Escalator 10 and Comb segment 12); a moving step comprising grooves and being drivable to pass by the combplate at a step-combplate interface at which, when each tooth is correctly positioned, each tooth passes through a corresponding groove (Page 2, lines 4-7: “The comb segment 12 has a plurality of teeth 14 which are spaced equidistant from each other. The teeth are accordingly arranged at a pitch corresponding to the pitch of the grooves of the surface of the associated escalator step. At both ends of the comb segments, the teeth are spaced apart from the associated end by half a grid dimension, so that when a plurality of comb segments are joined together, the grid dimension is maintained.”); and a detection system comprising an emitter and receiver pair and being configured to determine whether a signal pattern, which is derived from communications of the emitter and receiver pair and which is partially reflective of conditions of the teeth, is one of: a baseline signal pattern, which indicates that each tooth is correctly positioned, and a divergent signal pattern, which diverges from the baseline signal pattern and indicates that at least one tooth is incorrectly positioned (Page 3, lines 44-54: “The exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 2 differs from the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 in particular in that a sound transmitter 30 is provided in addition to the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 is arranged at a significant distance from the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 intermittently introduces a characteristic sound spectrum into the comb segment 12. For example, a sine wave having a frequency in the ultrasonic range tuned to the resonant frequency of the teeth 14 may be introduced. The sound spectrum thus present is permanently recorded by the sound sensor 24, which in this embodiment is designed as an ultrasonic sensor. In the evaluation circuit, the measured sound spectrum is compared with the standard sound spectrum of an intact comb segment. If one tooth or several teeth are broken off, a different sound spectrum is produced, whether because the transmission of sound is impeded or whether a tooth stub transmits higher-frequency oscillations. By detecting the differences, the sound spectrum is used at the sensor to distinguish whether the comb segment 12 is intact or not.”) wherein the emitter and receiver pair comprises an emitter and a receiver arranged proximate to a plane of the step-combplate interface (Figure 2: Sound transmitter 30 and sound sensor 24) .
However, Willnauer does not teach wherein the Emitter and receiver pair comprises an emitter and a receiver arranged respectively outside of and connected to outermost teeth of the combplate in the width-wise direction at opposite sides of the step combplate interface.
Saito discloses a similar escalator system wherein the Emitter and receiver pair comprises an emitter and a receiver arranged respectively outside of and connected to outermost teeth of the combplate in the width-wise direction at opposite sides of the step combplate interface (Figure 2: light-emitting element 25 and a light-83 receiving element 26 are opposite to one another arranged outside the outermost teeth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Willnauer to include the arrangement of the emitter and receiver as taught by Saito. The motivation for the modification would have been to allow for an escalator with an easy to assemble and install detection bar and detector, which is capable of stopping the conveyor immediately when the occupant is displaces, providing safety for the passengers (Page 1, lines 50-56).
Regarding Claim 10, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the escalator system according to Claim 9, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses wherein the signal pattern is a sonic pattern (Page 3, lines 44-54: “The exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 2 differs from the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 in particular in that a sound transmitter 30 is provided in addition to the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 is arranged at a significant distance from the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 intermittently introduces a characteristic sound spectrum into the comb segment 12. For example, a sine wave having a frequency in the ultrasonic range tuned to the resonant frequency of the teeth 14 may be introduced. The sound spectrum thus present is permanently recorded by the sound sensor 24, which in this embodiment is designed as an ultrasonic sensor. In the evaluation circuit, the measured sound spectrum is compared with the standard sound spectrum of an intact comb segment. If one tooth or several teeth are broken off, a different sound spectrum is produced, whether because the transmission of sound is impeded or whether a tooth stub transmits higher-frequency oscillations. By detecting the differences, the sound spectrum is used at the sensor to distinguish whether the comb segment 12 is intact or not.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the escalator system according to Claim 9, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses wherein the emitter and receiver pair comprises an ultrasonic emitter (Page 3, lines 44-54: “The exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 2 differs from the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 in particular in that a sound transmitter 30 is provided in addition to the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 is arranged at a significant distance from the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 intermittently introduces a characteristic sound spectrum into the comb segment 12. For example, a sine wave having a frequency in the ultrasonic range tuned to the resonant frequency of the teeth 14 may be introduced. The sound spectrum thus present is permanently recorded by the sound sensor 24, which in this embodiment is designed as an ultrasonic sensor. In the evaluation circuit, the measured sound spectrum is compared with the standard sound spectrum of an intact comb segment. If one tooth or several teeth are broken off, a different sound spectrum is produced, whether because the transmission of sound is impeded or whether a tooth stub transmits higher-frequency oscillations. By detecting the differences, the sound spectrum is used at the sensor to distinguish whether the comb segment 12 is intact or not.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the escalator system according to Claim 9, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses wherein the divergent signal pattern diverges from the baseline signal pattern in at least one of frequency, amplitude and shape (Page 3, lines 44-54: “The exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 2 differs from the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 in particular in that a sound transmitter 30 is provided in addition to the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 is arranged at a significant distance from the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 intermittently introduces a characteristic sound spectrum into the comb segment 12. For example, a sine wave having a frequency in the ultrasonic range tuned to the resonant frequency of the teeth 14 may be introduced. The sound spectrum thus present is permanently recorded by the sound sensor 24, which in this embodiment is designed as an ultrasonic sensor. In the evaluation circuit, the measured sound spectrum is compared with the standard sound spectrum of an intact comb segment. If one tooth or several teeth are broken off, a different sound spectrum is produced, whether because the transmission of sound is impeded or whether a tooth stub transmits higher-frequency oscillations. By detecting the differences, the sound spectrum is used at the sensor to distinguish whether the comb segment 12 is intact or not.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the escalator system according to Claim 9, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses wherein the detection system is further configured to determine whether the divergent signal pattern is one of: indicative of the at least one tooth being incorrectly positioned such that the combplate requires attention and no escalator shutdown is warranted, and indicative of the at least one tooth being incorrectly positioned such that the escalator shutdown is warranted (Page 2, lines 15-20: “According to a further modified embodiment of the solution according to the invention, it is provided to introduce sound into the comb plate and/or into the comb segments and to infer the integrity of all teeth via the sound spectrum transmitted or reflected by the comb segments. For this purpose, the evaluation circuit is designed in a special manner. The sound spectrum of a comb segment is acquired in an intact form and the sound spectrum of a comb segment with broken-off tooth is acquired in a short time. By detecting the differences, a number of criteria are established which are significant for broken off comb segment teeth.” And further page 1, lines 21-24: “On the other hand, it is important that the comb segments exist in the proper state, merely to ensure the safety of the passengers. For this purpose, during each maintenance of the escalator or moving walkway, precise monitoring of all comb segments, in particular also of the tooth roots, is usually carried out in order to determine whether a failure is already suggested in the future, possibly due to bent teeth or cracks or the like.”, wherein different criteria of the evaluation of the comb tooth could include cracks/bends for future failures, or active failures such as breaks which could follow different shutdown/maintenance criteria).
Regarding Claim 16, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the escalator system according to Claim 15, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses wherein the detection system is further configured to execute the escalator shutdown (Page 1, lines 46-48: “Therefore, the object of the invention is to provide an escalator or moving walkway according to the preamble of claim 1, which allows reliable breakage monitoring of comb teeth and also allows extended maintenance intervals.”).
Regarding Claim 17, Willnauer discloses a method of operating a detection system of an escalator system in which a moving step comprising grooves passes by a combplate at a step-combplate interface at which, when each tooth of the combplate is correctly positioned, each tooth passes through a corresponding groove, the teeth of the combplate being arranged in a line extending in a width-wise direction (Page 2, lines 4-7: “The comb segment 12 has a plurality of teeth 14 which are spaced equidistant from each other. The teeth are accordingly arranged at a pitch corresponding to the pitch of the grooves of the surface of the associated escalator step. At both ends of the comb segments, the teeth are spaced apart from the associated end by half a grid dimension, so that when a plurality of comb segments are joined together, the grid dimension is maintained.”), the method comprising: arranging an emitter and a receiver of an emitter and receiver pair proximate to a plane of the step-combplate interface (Figure 2: Sound transmitter 30 and sound sensor 24) .executing communications of an emitter and receiver pair; deriving a signal pattern from the communications of the emitter and receiver pair with the signal pattern being partially reflective of conditions of the teeth; and determining whether the signal pattern is one of: a baseline signal pattern, which indicates that each tooth is correctly positioned, and a divergent signal pattern, which diverges from the baseline signal pattern and indicates that at least one tooth is incorrectly positioned (Page 3, lines 44-54: “The exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 2 differs from the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 in particular in that a sound transmitter 30 is provided in addition to the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 is arranged at a significant distance from the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 intermittently introduces a characteristic sound spectrum into the comb segment 12. For example, a sine wave having a frequency in the ultrasonic range tuned to the resonant frequency of the teeth 14 may be introduced. The sound spectrum thus present is permanently recorded by the sound sensor 24, which in this embodiment is designed as an ultrasonic sensor. In the evaluation circuit, the measured sound spectrum is compared with the standard sound spectrum of an intact comb segment. If one tooth or several teeth are broken off, a different sound spectrum is produced, whether because the transmission of sound is impeded or whether a tooth stub transmits higher-frequency oscillations. By detecting the differences, the sound spectrum is used at the sensor to distinguish whether the comb segment 12 is intact or not.”).
However, Willnauer does not teach wherein the Emitter and receiver pair comprises an emitter and a receiver arranged respectively outside of and connected to outermost teeth of the combplate in the width-wise direction at opposite sides of the step combplate interface.
Saito discloses a similar escalator system wherein the Emitter and receiver pair comprises an emitter and a receiver arranged respectively outside of and connected to outermost teeth of the combplate in the width-wise direction at opposite sides of the step combplate interface (Figure 2: light-emitting element 25 and a light-83 receiving element 26 are opposite to one another arranged outside the outermost teeth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Willnauer to include the arrangement of the emitter and receiver as taught by Saito. The motivation for the modification would have been to allow for an escalator with an easy to assemble and install detection bar and detector, which is capable of stopping the conveyor immediately when the occupant is displaces, providing safety for the passengers (Page 1, lines 50-56).
Regarding Claim 18, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the method according to Claim 17, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses wherein the determining comprises determining whether the divergent signal pattern diverges from the baseline signal pattern in at least one of frequency, amplitude and shape (Page 3, lines 44-54: “The exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 2 differs from the exemplary embodiment according to FIG. 1 in particular in that a sound transmitter 30 is provided in addition to the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 is arranged at a significant distance from the sound sensor 24. The sound transmitter 30 intermittently introduces a characteristic sound spectrum into the comb segment 12. For example, a sine wave having a frequency in the ultrasonic range tuned to the resonant frequency of the teeth 14 may be introduced. The sound spectrum thus present is permanently recorded by the sound sensor 24, which in this embodiment is designed as an ultrasonic sensor. In the evaluation circuit, the measured sound spectrum is compared with the standard sound spectrum of an intact comb segment. If one tooth or several teeth are broken off, a different sound spectrum is produced, whether because the transmission of sound is impeded or whether a tooth stub transmits higher-frequency oscillations. By detecting the differences, the sound spectrum is used at the sensor to distinguish whether the comb segment 12 is intact or not.”).
Regarding Claim 19, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the method according to Claim 17, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses wherein the determining comprises determining whether the divergent signal pattern is one of: indicative of the at least one tooth being incorrectly positioned such that the combplate requires attention and no escalator shutdown is warranted, and indicative of the at least one tooth being incorrectly positioned such that the escalator shutdown is warranted (Page 2, lines 15-20: “According to a further modified embodiment of the solution according to the invention, it is provided to introduce sound into the comb plate and/or into the comb segments and to infer the integrity of all teeth via the sound spectrum transmitted or reflected by the comb segments. For this purpose, the evaluation circuit is designed in a special manner. The sound spectrum of a comb segment is acquired in an intact form and the sound spectrum of a comb segment with broken-off tooth is acquired in a short time. By detecting the differences, a number of criteria are established which are significant for broken off comb segment teeth.” And further page 1, lines 21-24: “On the other hand, it is important that the comb segments exist in the proper state, merely to ensure the safety of the passengers. For this purpose, during each maintenance of the escalator or moving walkway, precise monitoring of all comb segments, in particular also of the tooth roots, is usually carried out in order to determine whether a failure is already suggested in the future, possibly due to bent teeth or cracks or the like.”, wherein different criteria of the evaluation of the comb tooth could include cracks/bends for future failures, or active failures such as breaks which could follow different shutdown/maintenance criteria).
Regarding Claim 20, Willnauer in view of Saito discloses the method according to Claim 19, as seen above. Willnauer further discloses further comprising executing the escalator shutdown (Page 1, lines 46-48: “Therefore, the object of the invention is to provide an escalator or moving walkway according to the preamble of claim 1, which allows reliable breakage monitoring of comb teeth and also allows extended maintenance intervals.”).
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 ABBY ALLURA JORGENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:30.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/ABBY A JORGENSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651