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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 7-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: extra spaces should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1-18 are 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. The phrase “two groups” in line 7 in claim 1 indefinite because it’s not clear what constitutes a “group”.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the two contacts" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-12 recites “a short-connection/bridge-connection”. It’s not clear if these are intended to be synonyms or two different connections.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKASAWA CN 101863408 B in a view of HATTORI JP 2024007054 A and further in a view of SU CN 106315373 A.
Regarding claim 1, TAKASAWA discloses
A self-calibration elevator door lock contact making device (fig. 1), comprising a stationary base plate (item 14), a movable base plate (item 12), contacts (items 14a and 14b), adjusting components [0064, 0076] and, wherein the stationary base plate and the movable base plate are oppositely arranged and are respectively provided with the contacts and the two contacts are capable of moving relatively laterally or longitudinally through the adjusting components respectively [0067].
TAKAWAWA does not disclose but HATTORI discloses a controller (fig. 5, item 120), the controller is electrically connected with two groups of adjusting components (item 101)
PNG
media_image1.png
207
921
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a controller which is electrically connected to adjusting components as taught by HATTORI in TAKAWAWA’s teachings to support and adjust the position.
A combination of TAKAWASA and HATTORI does not disclose but SU discloses and provided with a contact detection loop capable of monitoring a contact state of the two contacts
PNG
media_image2.png
187
894
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
101
908
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a contact detection loop as disclosed by SU in TAKAWAWA’s teachings to support and adjust the position to identify different faults.
Regarding claim 7, SU disclose wherein the controller is further provided with a short-connection/bridge-connection command transmitter which can send a door lock short-connection/bridge-connection command and a short-connection/bridge-connection circuit for realizing the door lock short-connection/bridge-connection.
PNG
media_image4.png
268
906
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKASAWA CN 101863408 B in a view of HATTORI JP 2024007054 A further in a view of SU CN 106315373 A and further in a view of ZHANG CN 115263092 A.
Regarding claim 2, a combination of TAKAWASA, HATTORI and SU does not disclose but ZHANG discloses a base plate motor (fig. 4, item 5), and the movable base plate (item 23) is driven by the base plate motor to rotate relative to the stationary base plate (item 22).
PNG
media_image5.png
323
975
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a base plate motor as disclosed by ZHANG in TAKAWASA teachings to properly insert the door lock assembly.
Regarding claim 8, SU disclose wherein the controller is further provided with a short-connection/bridge-connection command transmitter which can send a door lock short-connection/bridge-connection command and a short-connection/bridge-connection circuit for realizing the door lock short-connection/bridge-connection.
PNG
media_image4.png
268
906
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKASAWA CN 101863408 B in a view of HATTORI JP 2024007054 A further in a view of SU CN 106315373 A and further in a view of LI CN 114148866 A .
Regarding claim 13, a combination of TAKAWASA, HATTORI and SU does not disclose but LI discloses wherein the controller is further provided with a calibration information (checking) receiver which can receive the calibration information of the two contacts in real time and a judgment logic module which compares the received calibration information with a standard calibration information table.
PNG
media_image6.png
138
901
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
284
913
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a calibration information of the two contacts as disclosed by LI in TAKAWASA teachings to check whether the elevator door lock detecting system is abnormal.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKASAWA CN 101863408 B in a view of HATTORI JP 2024007054 A further in a view of SU CN 106315373 A further in a view of ZHANG CN 115263092 A and further in a view of LI CN 114148866 A.
Regarding claim 14, a combination of TAKAWASA, HATTORI, SU and ZHANG does not disclose but LI discloses wherein the controller is further provided with a calibration information (checking) receiver which can receive the calibration information of the two contacts in real time and a judgment logic module which compares the received calibration information with a standard calibration information table.
PNG
media_image6.png
138
901
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
284
913
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a calibration information of the two contacts as disclosed by LI in TAKAWASA teachings to check whether the elevator door lock detecting system is abnormal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 9-12 and 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 3 discloses a counterweight along with its installation. Claim 4 recites details about the adjusting component.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kulak et al. (US 11,040,858 B2) disclose an elevator door interlock assembly.
Yang et al. (US 2017/0267495 A1) disclose a landing-door lock device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights