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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the claim objections from the previously filed Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment fails to overcome every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection from the previously filed Office Action. Please see the rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed on 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks:
“As set forth herein, Trett fails to disclose, either expressly or inherently, the specific angular configuration of the emitters and receivers as required by independent claim 1.
Independent claim 1 requires that the one or more emitters are positioned facing an acute angle a to plane P, measured in the horizontal plane, and that the one or more receivers are positioned facing an acute angle 0 to the plane P measured in the vertical plane, such that the receivers do not directly receive electromagnetic radiation from the emitters and instead receive radiation reflected from an object in the detection volume.
In the Non-Final Office Action, the Office relies on-to support its rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)-Trett's recitation that "the axis X is tilted away from the vertical." (See Non-Final Office Action at p. 5 (quoting Trett at col. 3, lines 25-35).) However, a tilt away from the vertical axis does not equate to angulation relative to the plane defined between the first and second boundary members, as required by independent claim 1. The plane P recited in claim 1 corresponds to the plane of the door opening defined between the first boundary member and the second boundary member, not to the vertical axis.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The vertical plane between the first and second boundary members as shown in annotated Fig. 4 below is indeed the “a plane P”. Claim 1 goes on to recite, “wherein the one or more emitters are positioned facing an acute angle α to the plane P, measured in the horizontal plane, to direct electromagnetic radiation at an angle α to the plane P and the one or more receivers are positioned facing at an acute angle Θ relative to the plane P when measured in the horizontal plane such that they do not directly receive electromagnetic radiation from the one or more directional emitters and for receiving the radiation of the emitters reflected from the object O in the detection volume V.”. As further noted in annotated Fig. 4 below, each of the transmitter 1 and receiver 2 are indeed positioned facing acute angles to plane P, measured in the horizontal plane where the transmitter 1 directs the electromagnetic radiation at an angle α relative to the plane P. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 1, the angular configuration as claimed is indeed disclosed by the tilted sensor configuration of Trett. Please see annotated Fig. 4 below for details.
The Applicant then further goes on to argue on page 8 of the Remarks:
“In contrast, Trett relies on a fundamentally different approach. Trett employs a physical barrier between the transmitter and receiver (see element 3 in Fig. 4) to restrict the direct signal path, in combination with directional emission constraints. The avoidance of direct coupling in Trett is therefore achieved structurally, not through compound angular orientation of the emitters and receivers relative to the plane between the boundary members. The figures of Trett, as cited by the Office, specifically Fig. 4, further illustrate this distinction. In embodiments relating to sliding doors, Trett depicts symmetric beam patterns extending across the plane of the door opening. There is no disclosure or suggestion of asymmetric or horizontally angled emission relative to the door plane, nor any teaching that such horizontal angulation is used in combination with vertical tilt.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language of claim 1, the transmitter and receiver configuration as disclosed in Fig. 4 of Trett where a barrier (barrier 3) prevents the direct coupling between the transmitter and receiver indeed fulfills the scope of the limitation. The Applicant appears to rely on the recitation of “such that they do not directly receive electromagnetic radiation from the one or more directional emitters and for receiving the radiation of the emitters reflected from the object O in the detection volume V” to imply that the angular positioning to the emitter and receiver is all that prevents the direct coupling between the emitter and receiver. However, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language the emitter and receiving need to be positioned as certain acute angles relative to plane P and all that is required is that there is no coupling between the emitter and receiver whether that is achieved through the angular configuration or some other means. The claim does not requires that the feature of “such that they do not directly receive electromagnetic radiation from the one or more directional emitters and for receiving the radiation of the emitters reflected from the object O in the detection volume V” is a result of merely the angular configuration.
Therefore, the Examiner asserts that each and every claim limitation of claim 1 is indeed disclosed by Trett based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
389
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
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 11-14 and 19 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation, “the boundary member” in “and including an upper detector located on the boundary member, above one or more lower detectors;”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as a first boundary member and a second boundary member have been introduced and therefore it is unclear which “the boundary member” is being referred to.
Claims 12-14 and 19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the dependency on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,6,8-17,19,20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trett et al. (US 4910464 A), hereinafter Trett.
Regarding claim 1, Trett discloses
A proximity detection system for detecting an object in a detection volume V (see Abstract, “A movable door incorporates a proximity detection system for sensing obstructions in the path of the door.”) comprising:
a first boundary member and a second boundary member, defining therebetween a plane P and a gap G (see Fig. 4, first boundary member is edge of door 12, furthermore, the edge of the doorway 5 onto which the door closes is the “second boundary member”);
the first boundary member facing and movable relative to the second boundary member (See Fig. 4 where edge of door 12 faces the doorway edge 5 and can slide closed, further see Col. 3 , lines 25-35, “Referring to FIG. 4, a sensor unit 1-3 is mounted at the top of an automatic sliding door 12. The door 12 slides in the direction S. The barrier 3 is between the transmitter 1 and the receiver 2 and restricts the direct signal path. The axis X is tilted away from the vertical so as to produce a detection profile 10 which extends from the door edge 12A into the opening. It is preferable that no signal may be emitted from the transmitter in such a direction as to cause reflection from the edge 5 back towards the receiver 2.”) and;
the first boundary member comprising a detector mounted thereto (see Fig. 4, door 12 has sensor unit 1-3 mounted on top);
the detector comprising one or more directional emitters for emitting electromagnetic radiation and one or more directional receivers for detecting the presence of said emitted electromagnetic radiation (see Fig. 4, further see Col. 3 , lines 25-35, “Referring to FIG. 4, a sensor unit 1-3 is mounted at the top of an automatic sliding door 12. The door 12 slides in the direction S. The barrier 3 is between the transmitter 1 and the receiver 2 and restricts the direct signal path. The axis X is tilted away from the vertical so as to produce a detection profile 10 which extends from the door edge 12A into the opening. It is preferable that no signal may be emitted from the transmitter in such a direction as to cause reflection from the edge 5 back towards the receiver 2.”);
wherein the one or more emitters are positioned facing an acute angle α to the plane P (see annotated Fig. 4 below), measured in the horizontal plane, to direct electromagnetic radiation at an angle α to the plane P and the one or more receivers are positioned facing at an acute angle θ relative to the plane P when measured in the horizontal plane such that they do not directly receive electromagnetic radiation from the one or more directional emitters and for receiving the radiation of the emitters reflected from the object O in the detection volume V (see annotated Fig. 4 below where the transmitter 1 and receiver 2 are mounted at acute angles α and θ with a barrier between so that the transmitted signals are not directly received by the receiver and instead received after be reflected off the object in the detection volume, where the barrier 3 restricts direct coupling between the transmitter and receiver, further see Col. 6, lines 1-3 ).
PNG
media_image1.png
389
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding claim 2, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 1, wherein the one or more emitters comprise down emitters and/or up emitters (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 6, the transmitters which are transmitting downwards are “down emitters”); wherein the up emitters are positioned to face upwards an acute angle ϐup relative to plane P when measured in the vertical plane and down emitters are positioned to face downwards at an acute angle ϐdown relative to plane P when measured in the vertical plane (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 6, transmitter 1 oriented to transmit the signal down at an acute angle); and wherein the detector includes at least one down emitter (see Fig. 4, transmitter 1 is “at least one down emitter”).
Regarding claim 3, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 1, wherein the one or more receivers are positioned facing horizontally (see Fig. 4, where the receiver 2 is “positioned facing horizontally”).
Regarding claim 5, Trett further discloses
The proximity detector system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more emitters emit electromagnetic signals of polar and/or infrared radiation (see Col. 2, lines 60-63, “Referring to FIG. 3 the said transmitters or receivers may be transducers of acoustic or electromagnetic energy (for example in the infrared region of the spectrum).”).
Regarding claim 6, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system according to claim 1, wherein the emitted electromagnetic radiation from each emitter forms a conical shape having an angle σ (See Figs. 3 and 4, further see Col. 2, line 68 - Col. 3, line 3, “It follows therefore that these transducers may be considered to radiate (transmitters) or receive (receivers) energy in the form of a conical profile 10.”).
Regarding claim 8, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 1, wherein the angle α is such that the emitted radiation from a detector of the first or second boundary member does not directly reach the other of the first or second boundary member (see Fig. 4, further see Col. 3 , lines 25-35, “Referring to FIG. 4, a sensor unit 1-3 is mounted at the top of an automatic sliding door 12. The door 12 slides in the direction S. The barrier 3 is between the transmitter 1 and the receiver 2 and restricts the direct signal path. The axis X is tilted away from the vertical so as to produce a detection profile 10 which extends from the door edge 12A into the opening. It is preferable that no signal may be emitted from the transmitter in such a direction as to cause reflection from the edge 5 back towards the receiver 2.”).
Regarding claim 9, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 1, wherein α is approximately θ (see Figs. 1-4, where the positioning of transmitter 1 and receiver 2 is so that they form approximately equal angles to the object).
Regarding claim 10, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 1, wherein the first boundary member and/or second boundary member includes a plurality of detectors (see Fig. 6, which depicts the mounting of a plurality of sensors units 21-27); each facing a region of the detection volume V of the respective boundary member (see Fig. 6, where sensors units 21-27 are facing the detection volume V of doorway).
Regarding claim 11, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 2, wherein the first boundary member or second boundary member includes a plurality of detectors (see Fig. 6, sensors units 21-27); each facing a region of the detection volume V of the respective boundary member (see Fig. 6), and including an upper detector located on the boundary member, above one or more lower detectors (see Fig. 6, sensor unit 21 is “upper detector” and sensor units 22 and 24 is “the lower detector”); wherein the lower detectors include an up emitter, a down emitter and a plurality of receivers (see Fig. 6 where sensor units 22 and 24 include “up emitter” (i.e. transmitter for 24), down emitter (i.e. transmitter for 22) and a plurality of receivers (i.e. receivers for 22 and 24)).
Regarding claim 12, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 11, wherein the upper detector includes only a down emitter and the receiver wherein the receiver is orientated facing downwards (see Fig. 4, transmitter 1 and receiver 2 orientation are downwards and only include down emitter).
Regarding claim 13, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 12, wherein there are three detectors including one upper detector (see Fig. 6, upper detector 21) and two lower detectors wherein the two lower detectors are configured identically (see Fig. 6, “lower detectors” 22-27 are configured identically (i.e. include an emitter and receiver)).
Regarding claim 14, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 11, wherein the lower detector includes in the following sequence vertically spaced from the top, the down emitter, a first receiver, a second receiver and the up emitter (see Fig. 6, down emitter 21, receiver of unit 21 (i.e. “a first receiver”), receiver of unit 22 (i.e. a second receiver) and the up emitter of unit 24).
Regarding claim 15, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 1, including a controller connected to the one or more receivers;
wherein the controller includes a processor for receiving an output from each of the one or more receivers and producing a reference signal (see Fig. 11, further see Col. 6, lines 29-46, “FIG. 11 shows a circuit which may be used with infrared detectors shown in FIG. 6. Known circuit techniques can be used to implement it. Each of the sensor units 21 to 27 is connected to its own non-linear amplifier 8 to 13 through a respective rectifier and smoothing filter 18 to 53. Outputs of amplifiers 8 to 11 are connected to a summing amplifier 14, the output of which is connected to one input of each of four comparators 16 to 19. The other input of each comparator 16-19 is connected to one output of the respective one of the amplifiers 8 to 11. The outputs of the amplifiers 12 and 13 are connected to two separate inputs of the comparator 20. The output of all the comparators 16 to 20 are connected to the inputs of the logical "OR" gate 41. The output signal 42 from the gate 41 is the detection signal indicative of the presence of a detected object.”); and a comparison means for comparing the output of each receiver to said reference signal and generating a control signal when the difference between any of the output signals from the receivers and the reference signal exceeds a predetermined threshold (see col. 6, line 58 – Col. 7, line 2, “The output signal of the summing amplifier 14 represents the average level of the four input signals from the amplifiers 8 to 11. This average signal is used as the reference level for one input to each of the comparators 16 to 19. The other inputs to the comparators are derived from the output signals from the amplifiers 8 to 11. The respective comparators give an output if their received signal goes above or below a threshold band established from and centred on the reference level from amplifier 14. The comparator outputs are processed in the OR gate 41 to give a detection output signal 42. FIG. 12 shows the comparator 16 in more detail.”, further see claim 1 of Trett).
Regarding claim 16, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 15, wherein the processor includes an averaging means for producing the reference signal and the reference signal is equal to an instantaneous average or moving average of the output of the receivers (see Col. 6, line 28- Col. 7, line 2, “The output signal of the summing amplifier 14 represents the average level of the four input signals from the amplifiers 8 to 11. This average signal is used as the reference level for one input to each of the comparators 16 to 19. The other inputs to the comparators are derived from the output signals from the amplifiers 8 to 11. The respective comparators give an output if their received signal goes above or below a threshold band established from and centred on the reference level from amplifier 14. The comparator outputs are processed in the OR gate 41 to give a detection output signal 42. FIG. 12 shows the comparator 16 in more detail.”, further see Col. 7, lines 37-45, “The average signal from the amplifier 14 may be used manually or automatically to reset the outputs of amplifiers 8 to 11 to equality at will and during initial setting. This average signal from the amplifier 14 may also be used during operation to adjust the outputs from the amplifiers 8 to 11 if there is a large, or rapidly increasing error signal or a continuous comparator signal output from the comparators 16 to 19”, further see claim 1 of Trett).
Regarding claim 17, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 1, wherein the first boundary member is the leading edge of a first door movable in the plane P (see Fig. 4, edge of door 12).
Regarding claim 19, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 14, wherein the first boundary member is the leading edge of a first door movable in the plane P (see Fig. 4, edge of door 12) and optionally the second boundary member is the leading edge of a second door movable in the plane P; and wherein the first door and optionally the second door are moved by one or more actuators (see Fig. 4, where sliding door is an automatic sliding door coupled to “door controller”, further see Col. 8, lines 52-59, “The output of the exclusive OR gate 70 is connected to a remote device 76, for example, for a door controller, and/or to provide further synchronisation signals and control signals e.g. for further units.”), the actuators are operably connected to the controller for receiving control signals therefrom; and wherein the one or more actuators are configured to modify the relative movement of the first door and optionally the second door in response to the control signal (see “door controller” in Col. 8, lines 52-59, “The output of the exclusive OR gate 70 is connected to a remote device 76, for example, for a door controller, and/or to provide further synchronisation signals and control signals e.g. for further units.”).
Regarding claim 20, Trett further discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 1, wherein the detection volume V extends vertically in the direction of plane P and extends horizontally perpendicular to plane P offset a distance D from plane P (see Figs. 3-5, detection volume for the object).
Regarding claim 25, Trett further discloses
A movable door or elevator including the proximity detection system of claim 1 (see Fig. 4, where door 12 is a sliding door).
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.
Claim(s) 4,7,18,21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trett et al. (US 4910464 A).
Regarding claim 4, Trett discloses
The proximity detection system according to claim 1, wherein the second boundary member is movable and includes a detector mounted thereto (see Col. 6, lines 19-21, “This is also desirable for a pair of centre-opening doors in which the detectors, mounted on the leading edges of both doors, come face to face.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features as disclosed by Trett to yield the invention of claim 4 above. Although Trett does not disclose in the embodiments of Figs. 4-6 the use of a secondary door facing the first door edge, Trett does disclose in see Col. 6, lines 19-21, “This is also desirable for a pair of centre-opening doors in which the detectors, mounted on the leading edges of both doors, come face to face”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have a pair of doors facing each other where each door has the detectors mounted on the leading edges of both doors. The combination of these features as disclosed by Trett would make it obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize different door arrangements for effective obstruction detection by the system.
Regarding claim 7, Trett discloses [Note: what Trett fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The proximity detection system of claim 6,
It would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the angular radiation of the emitters to “0.5σ is less than α or ϐup or ϐdown”. MPEP § 2141 provides that an invention may render a claimed limitation obvious when it would be “obvious to try” to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In such an instance it would be obvious to try to specify the angular radiation range so that there is no direct coupling between the emitter and receiver. Such a design feature would lead to more effective obstruction detection while limiting noise in the system.
Regarding claim 18, Trett discloses
The proximity detection system of claim 17, wherein the second boundary member is the leading edge of a second door movable in the plane P (see Col. 6, lines 19-21, “This is also desirable for a pair of centre-opening doors in which the detectors, mounted on the leading edges of both doors, come face to face.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features as disclosed by Trett to yield the invention of claim 4 above. Although Trett does not disclose in the embodiments of Figs. 4-6 the use of a secondary door facing the first door edge, Trett does disclose in see Col. 6, lines 19-21, “This is also desirable for a pair of centre-opening doors in which the detectors, mounted on the leading edges of both doors, come face to face”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have a pair of doors facing each other where each door has the detectors mounted on the leading edges of both doors. The combination of these features as disclosed by Trett would make it obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize different door arrangements for effective obstruction detection by the system.
Regarding claim 21, Trett discloses [Note: what Trett fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The proximity detection system of claim 1,
It would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the angular radiation of the emitters to “wherein angle α and/or angle θ is between 10 and 70 degrees”. MPEP § 2141 provides that an invention may render a claimed limitation obvious when it would be “obvious to try” to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In such an instance it would be obvious to try to specify the angular radiation range so that there is no direct coupling between the emitter and receiver. Such a design feature would lead to more effective obstruction detection while limiting noise in the system.
Regarding claim 22, Trett discloses [Note: what Trett fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The proximity detection system of claim 2,
It would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the angular radiation of the emitters to “wherein ϐup and/or ϐdown is between 10 and 70 degrees”. MPEP § 2141 provides that an invention may render a claimed limitation obvious when it would be “obvious to try” to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In such an instance it would be obvious to try to specify the angular radiation range so that there is no direct coupling between the emitter and receivers. Such a design feature would lead to more effective obstruction detection while limiting noise in the system.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trett et al. (US 4910464 A) in view of Gray (US 4794248 A).
Regarding claim 24, Trett discloses [Note: what Trett fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The proximity detection system of claim 4,
Gray discloses,
wherein the receiver of the detector of the second boundary member is configured to detect the emitted radiation of the detector of the first boundary member (see Fig. 1 where detector of the second boundary member on the right (i.e. detector 23), receives the emitted radiation of the detector of the first boundary member (i.e. emitted radiation from emitters 12).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Gray into the invention of Trett. The combination of Trett and Gray would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively detect obstructions while maintaining safety and cost (see Col. 1, lines 61-63 of Gray).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 23, Trett fails to disclose the feature of “wherein the emitters and receivers are orientated such that the emitted radiation of each emitter is not directly received by any receiver”. In reference to dependent claim 23, there is nothing in the prior art that would suggest modifying Trett to have the missing elements without the improper use of hindsight. Specifically, nothing in the prior art would suggest that “the emitters and receivers are orientated such that the emitted radiation of each emitter is not directly received by any receiver” in combination of the other claimed features of the claims from which claim 23 depends upon. Therefore, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 23.
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 NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648