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 .
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) 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus (EP 3,518,264).
With respect to claim 14, Klaus teaches an elevator pushbutton device comprising:
a guide housing (fig. 2, 3);
an actuating element (fig. 2, 2) disposed within the guide housing;
wherein the guide housing has fastening wings adapted (fig. 2; 4 winds extending out) to attach a switch device (paragraph 0058); and
element are each formed of a metal material (paragraph 0058) and the guide housing is a monolithic one-piece metal.
Klaus does not teach metal being injected molded component.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to guide/part be made through injection molding, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 15, Klaus teaches wherein the guide housing has an annular upper end portion (fig. 2, 3).
With respect to claim 16, Klaus does not teach wherein an outer diameter of the upper end portion of the guide housing is 3.429 cm +/- 0.034 cm and a height of the guide housing extending in a direction of a central axis of the upper end portion of the guide housing is 1.905 cm +/- 0.019 cm.
With respect to claim 17, Klaus does not teach wherein a length of the fastening wings extending parallel to a central axis of the upper end portion of the guide housing is 0.863 cm +/- 0.009 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for length of fastening wings, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 18, Klaus does not teach wherein a free length of the fastening wings extending parallel to a central axis of the upper end portion of the guide housing and being between a lower end of a central body of the guide housing and a lower end of the guide housing is 0.558 cm +/- 0.006 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for length of fastening wings, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 19, Klaus does not teach wherein a thickness of the fastening wings extending perpendicular to a central axis of the upper end portion of the guide housing is 0.076 cm +/- 0.001 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for thickness of fastening wings, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 20, Klaus does not teach wherein the fastening wings are flat in a direction parallel to a central axis of the upper end portion of the guide housing and each of the fastening wings has a width of 0.762 cm +/-.0.008 cm, wherein the width extends in a direction perpendicular to the central axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for length of fastening wings, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 21, Klaus does not teach wherein a ratio of a length of the fastening wings to a width of the fastening wings is in a range of 1.100 to 1.150.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for ratio of fastening length, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 22, Klaus does not teach wherein a ratio of a free length of the fastening wings to a width of the fastening wings is in a range of 0.700 to 0.770.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for ratio of fastening length, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 23, Klaus does not teach wherein a ratio of a length of the fastening wings to a thickness of the fastening wings is in a range of 11.000 to 11.700.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for ratio of fastening length, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 24, Klaus does not teach wherein a ratio of a free length of the fastening wings to a thickness of the fastening wings is in a range of 7.000 to 7.700.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for ratio of fastening length, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 25, Klaus does not teach wherein a ratio of a length of the fastening wings to a free length of the fastening wings is in a range of 1.500 to 1.600.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for ratio of fastening length, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 26, Klaus teaches an elevator comprising: an operating panel (paragraph 0032); and at least one of the elevator pushbutton device according to Claim 14 assembled in the operating panel.
With respect to claim 27, Klaus teaches an elevator pushbutton device comprising:
a guide housing (fig. 2, 3) having an annular upper end portion,
a central portion (paragraph 0043; seat of pressel) extending from the upper end portion and a pair of fastening wings extending (fig. 2; 4 winds extending out) from the central portion, the fastening wings being adapted to attach a switch device (paragraph 0060) to the guide housing;
an actuating element (fig. 2, 2) disposed within the upper end portion of the guide housing; and
wherein the guide housing (paragraph 0058) and the actuating element are each formed of at least one metal material and the guide housing is a monolithic one-piece metal.
Klaus does not teach metal being injected molded component.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to guide/part be made through injection molding, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICK DAVID GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-8395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri_8-5pm.
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.
/ERICK D GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights