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 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.
Claim(s)1-8, 12-15 is/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.
Claim 1 recites, “gate-like”. It is unclear as to what encompasses ‘like’.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “surface elements” while claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one separate surface element”. It is unclear if a plurality of surface elements are required to meet the claim limitation of claim 2. Similar comments are made for claims 3-4, 6-8, 13.
Claim 4, recites, “box-like”. It is unclear what encompasses ‘like’.
The term “decorative panel” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “decorative panel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “functional panel” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “functional panel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "opening part" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "door opening part" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “decorative surface panel” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “decorative panel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “functional surface panel” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “functional panel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Dependent claims not addressed above are rejected due to dependency of a rejected base claim.
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, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Pub. 2018/0194596 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a door frame of an elevator, wherein the door frame is a three-sided structure installable in an opening portion of an entrance of the elevator whereby the door frame has a gate-like configuration (Pg. 1, [0001]: “The present invention relates to a landing jamb for an elevator which is provided on both of right and left sides and to an upper part of a landing doorway”) comprising two opposite upright frame parts covering both side portions of the opening portion (Fig. 2, vertical frames 5, 6) and an upper frame part disposed between upper end portions of the upright frame parts for covering an upper portion of the opening portion (Fig. 2, top frame 7);
wherein the upright frame parts and the upper frame part each comprise at least one mounting frame element and at least one separate surface element attachable removably to the mounting frame elements (Fig. 2, flat bars 8, 9, 10).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto discloses wherein between the surface elements and the mounting frame elements are shape locking elements for providing the surface elements with the removable mounting (Pg. 1, [0009], lines 1-13: “According to one embodiment of the present invention, there is provided a landing jamb for an elevator, including: a jamb main body provided to both sides of a landing doorway and to an upper part of the landing doorway; a design plate superposed to surfaces of the jamb main body, the design plate being a flat plate having a plate thickness larger than a plate thickness of the jamb main body; and a plurality of sets of fixtures configured to fix the design plates to the jamb main body, in which each of the fixtures of at least one set of the plurality of sets of fixtures includes: a stud bolt, which is fixed to corresponding one of the design plate, and passes through the jamb main body; a main nut screwed over the stud bolt”).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto discloses wherein the surface elements are one piece elements whereby each of them is covering either the side portion or the upper portion entirely (Fig. 2, all three of the panels appear to be of continuous, one-piece construction).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto discloses wherein at least one of the upright and upper frame parts has a box-like structure comprising free space between inner surfaces of the mounting frame element and the surface element (Pg. 2, [0017], lines 8-10: “Each of the vertical frames 5 and 6 and the top frame 7 is formed by bending a steel plate”).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood by the Examiner, Yamamoto discloses wherein at least one of the changeable surface elements is a decorative panel (Fig. 2, the panel can be described as decorative).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto discloses a method of providing an opening portion of an entrance of an elevator with a door frame (Pg. 1, [0001]: “The present invention relates to a landing jamb for an elevator which is provided on both of right and left sides and to an upper part of a landing doorway”);
the method comprising:
providing the door frame with two opposite upright frame parts and mounting them to opposite side portions of the opening portion (Fig. 2, vertical frames 5, 6);
and providing the door frame also with an upper frame part and disposing the upper frame part between upper end portions of the upright frame parts and thereby covering an upper portion of the opening portion (Fig. 2, top frame 7);
characterized by providing the upright frame parts and the upper frame part each with at least one mounting frame element and at least one separate surface element;
mounting the mounting frame elements fixedly against surfaces of walls limiting the opening portion of the entrance of the elevator (Fig. 2, flat bars 8, 9, 10);
and mounting the surface element removably to the mounting frame element (Pg. 1, [0009], lines 1-13: “According to one embodiment of the present invention, there is provided a landing jamb for an elevator, including: a jamb main body provided to both sides of a landing doorway and to an upper part of the landing doorway; a design plate superposed to surfaces of the jamb main body, the design plate being a flat plate having a plate thickness larger than a plate thickness of the jamb main body; and a plurality of sets of fixtures configured to fix the design plates to the jamb main body, in which each of the fixtures of at least one set of the plurality of sets of fixtures includes: a stud bolt, which is fixed to corresponding one of the design plate, and passes through the jamb main body; a main nut screwed over the stud bolt”).
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto discloses using pre-cut mounting frame elements lengths of which are dimensioned in accordance with dimensions of the opening portion of the entrance of the elevator (Fig. 2, the bars 8, 9, 10 are sized so that they fit within the frame).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto discloses assembling the mounting frame parts together at the installation site for forming a pre-assembled mounting frame structure (Fig. 2, the components are attached to the elevator frame which is at a site);
and mounting the mounting frame structure in one piece to the wall surfaces (Fig. 2, all three of the panels appear to be of continuous, one-piece construction).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood by the Examiner, Yamamoto discloses preassembling a mounting frame structure outside the opening part prior installing to the door opening part (Fig. 2, the frame that receives bars 8, 9, 10 necessarily has to be built before the bars are installed).
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto discloses hanging the surface elements to the mounting frame elements by means of shape locking elements (Pg. 1, [0009], lines 1-13: “According to one embodiment of the present invention, there is provided a landing jamb for an elevator, including: a jamb main body provided to both sides of a landing doorway and to an upper part of the landing doorway; a design plate superposed to surfaces of the jamb main body, the design plate being a flat plate having a plate thickness larger than a plate thickness of the jamb main body; and a plurality of sets of fixtures configured to fix the design plates to the jamb main body, in which each of the fixtures of at least one set of the plurality of sets of fixtures includes: a stud bolt, which is fixed to corresponding one of the design plate, and passes through the jamb main body; a main nut screwed over the stud bolt”).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner, Yamamoto discloses providing the door frame with decorative surface panels (Fig. 2, the panel can be described as decorative).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Pub. 2018/0194596 A1) in view of Teixeira Pinto Dias (US Pub. 2012/0304550 A1).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood by the Examiner, Yamamoto discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Teixeira Pinto Dias, similarly drawn to an elevator shaft closure, wherein at least one of the surface elements comprises at least two surface element components which together cover the corresponding mounting frame element (Fig. 2, the panel cover comprises cover 17 and post wall 16.3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface element of Yamamoto to comprise the two element components of Teixeira Pinto Dias for modular replacement of parts.
Claim(s) 7-8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US Pub. 2018/0194596 A1) in view of Rossignol (US Pub. 2005/0133313 A1).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood by the Examiner, Yamamoto discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Rossignol, similarly drawn to an elevator shaft door frame, wherein at least one of the changeable surface elements is a functional panel provided with at least one controllable feature (Fig. 4, floor panel 20. Pg. 1, [0005], lines 9-12: “The same wall generally also has a passage in which a floor panel is arranged by way of which the users of the elevator system can call the elevator car”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Yamamoto to comprise the panel and electrical installation of Rossignol to allow for calling the elevator.
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Rossignol, similarly drawn to an elevator shaft door frame, wherein at least one of the mentioned surface elements and mounting frame elements comprises at least one pre-mounted electrical cable and at least one pre-mounted electrical coupling component (Pg. 3, [0037] – [0039]: “The control arrangement comprises, in addition to the control unit 18, the following: fastening means for installation of the control unit 18 in the chamber 16; cable for current supply and for creating the connections to the floor panel and for connecting with the drive of the elevator”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Yamamoto to comprise the electrical cable and at least one pre-mounted electrical coupling component of Rossignol to allow electric power to and control of the elevator.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner, Yamamoto discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Rossignol, similarly drawn to an elevator shaft door frame, providing the door frame with functional surface panels provided with at least one electrical installation (Fig. 4, floor panel 20. Pg. 1, [0005], lines 9-12: “The same wall generally also has a passage in which a floor panel is arranged by way of which the users of the elevator system can call the elevator car”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Yamamoto to comprise the panel and electrical installation of Rossignol to allow for calling the elevator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642