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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is allowable.
Claims 7 – 11 are 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.
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 – 6, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. JP2007172461 (hereinafter Nakayama) in view of Roessler et al. US 2005/270021 (hereinafter Roessler).
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama teaches: a switch system comprising:
a controller (Fig. 7, #4);
a plurality of switches (Abstract - - noncontact door switch); and
a signal line annularly connecting the controller and the plurality of switches, wherein a signal, transmitted from the controller to a first switch being one of the plurality of switches, is passed through the plurality of switches sequentially and returned from a second switch being one of the plurality of switches to the controller (Fig. 12, [0091]-[0093] - - multiple switches connected to controller in a ring),
wherein each of the plurality of switches includes an operating body (Fig. 12, [0091]-[0093] - - actuator 10a), a detection unit configured to detect proximity of the operating body (Fig. 12, [0091]-[0093] - - sensor unit 10b), a reception unit configured to receive the signal via the signal line (Fig. 7, [0069] - - input unit 11), a control unit configured to include, in the signal, proximity information indicating whether the operating body is in proximity to the detection unit (Fig. 7, [0075] - - wave generation unit 14 is a control unit), and a transmission unit configured to transmit the signal including the proximity information via the signal line (Fig. 7, [0069] - - output unit 12 is a transmission unit), and
But Nakayama does not explicitly teach:
the signal that the controller receives from the second switch includes the proximity information of each of the plurality of switches.
However, Roessler teaches:
the signal that the controller receives from the second switch includes the proximity information of each of the plurality of switches ([0045]-[0046]).
Nakayama and Roessler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to system of switches.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Nakayama, and incorporating signal including information of each switches, as taught by Roessler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce wiring effort, as suggested by Roessler ([0019]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nakayama and Roessler teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Roessler further teaches: a part corresponding to each of the plurality of switches in the signal includes the proximity information of a corresponding switch among the plurality of switches (Fig.3, [0046] - - transferring switching state information).
Nakayama and Roessler are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nakayama and Roessler teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Roessler further teaches: the signal includes a first value and a second value, and the control units of the plurality of switches each set the part corresponding to each of the plurality of switches in the signal to the first value when the operating body is in proximity to the detection unit, and set the part corresponding to each of the plurality of switches in the signal to the second value when the operating body is not in proximity to the detection unit (Fig. 3, [0041] - - state 1 and 0).
Nakayama and Roessler are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nakayama and Roessler teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Roessler further teaches: the first value is High level, and the second value is Low level (Fig. 3, [0041] - - state 1 and 0; it is a design choice which state is high level and which state is low level).
Nakayama and Roessler are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nakayama and Roessler teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Roessler further teaches: the first value is Low level, and the second value is High level (Fig. 3, [0041] - - state 1 and 0; it is a design choice which state is high level and which state is low level).
Nakayama and Roessler are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nakayama and Roessler teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nakayama further teaches: the controller includes, in the signal to be transmitted to the first switch, request information for requesting status information indicating a state of a switch of the plurality of switches, the control units of the plurality of switches each determine whether the status information is requested, based on the request information included in the signal, and when the status information is requested, the control unit includes the status information in the signal ([0069] - - the predetermined pattern signal is a request; the detection pulse signal indicates state of switch), and
the signal that the controller receives from the second switch includes the status information of at least one of the plurality of switches ([0069] - - the detection pulse signal indicates state of switch).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nakayama and Roessler teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nakayama further teaches: the switch is connected to the controller by the signal line (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nakayama and Roessler teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Nakayama further teaches: the switch is connected to other two of the plurality of switches by the signal line (Fig. 12 - - the switch at the center is connected to other two switches).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116