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 .
The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of December 18, 2024 are under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on December 18, 2024. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
See “component for receiving and transmitting signals” in claim 6, where “component” is the generic placeholder and “for receiving and transmitting signals” is the modifying functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 lacks antecedent basis for “the distance threshold”.
Claim 8 lacks antecedent basis for “the distance threshold”.
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 and 12 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 11 is unclear whether the claim is an independent claim or a dependent claim. If it is an independent claim, the claim should positively recite all limitations. If the claim is a dependent claim, the preamble should match that of the claim from which it depends. Further, the claim should further limit the claim from which it depends.
Claim 11 combines two statutory classes, i.e. method and apparatus, in one claim. The combination of different statutory classes in one claim is improper, correction is required.
Claim 11 is indefinite because the claim fails to set forth any structural limitations.
Claim 12 is unclear in whether the claim is an independent claim or a dependent claim. If it is an independent claim, the claim should positively recite all limitations. If the claim is a dependent claim, the preamble should match that of the claim from which it depends. Further, the claim should further limit the claim from which it depends.
Claim 12 combines two statutory classes, i.e. method and apparatus, in one claim. The combination of different statutory classes in one claim is improper, correction is required.
Claim 12 is considered indefinite because the claim fails to set forth any element which executes the instructions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Document (JP 2023129021A, copy and machine translation attached, hereafter ‘021).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, ‘021 teaches a method for controlling conveyor devices, comprising: in response to an emergency signal [Para. 26, “control unit 16a receives fire information”], controlling a conveyor device among conveyor devices (a plurality of passenger conveyors 1 is disclosed) associated with a location of an emergency (example of a fire detector on the fourth floor) that moves in the same direction as an escape direction to continue moving [Para. 40, “in the event of a fire, the control unit 16a…may operate the passenger conveyor in an upward or downward direction”]; and stopping a conveyor device among the conveyor devices associated with the location of the emergency that moves towards a floor where the emergency occurs from moving towards the floor [Para. 26, “when the control unit 16a receives fire information, it controls the motor 15, etc. to temporarily stop the operation of the passenger conveyor 1, and then, based on the floor information and position information included in the fire information…maintains the operation of the passenger conveyor 1 in a stopped state”]; wherein, the conveyor devices associated with the location of the emergency includes a conveyor device with either its conveying entrance or its conveying exit located on the floor where the emergency occurs (in Figure 2, conveyors 1-3A and 1-4B have an entrance or exit on the fourth floor).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, ‘021 teaches determining a distance of each conveyor device associated with the location of the emergency from the location of the emergency [Para. 27, “when the control unit 16a receives fire information, it determines from the floor information…whether the floor on which the fire occurred and the floor on which the passenger conveyor 1 having the control unit 16a is installed are separated by more than a first predetermined number of floors”]; if there is a conveyor device with the determined distance less than a distance threshold, stopping it from moving [Para. 28, “if the floor where the fire occurred is the same as the floor where the passenger conveyor 1 is installed…control unit 16a maintains the passenger conveyor 1 in a stopped state”]; and, if there is a conveyor device with the determined distance greater than the distance threshold and moving in the same direction as the escape direction, controlling the conveyor device to continue moving [Para. 34, “the floor on which the passenger conveyor 1 is installed is far from the floor where the fire occurred…the control unit 16a controls the motor 15, etc. to raise the passenger conveyor 1”].
Regarding Claim(s) 5, ‘021 teaches the conveyor devices include escalators [Para. 10, “Passenger conveyor belt 1 is an escalator”. The language “and/or moving walks, in which for the moving walks, the floor where the emergency occurs is the location where the emergency occurs” is not required by the claim because the claim uses the term “and/or”. The prior art discloses an escalator, thereby anticipating the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, ‘021 teaches a control apparatus (disaster prevention center 110 and control units 16a) for conveyor devices, comprising: a communication component for receiving and transmitting signals [Para. 13, implied by “the disaster prevention center 110 receives a fire signal”]; a processor configured to, in response to an emergency signal received, control a conveyor device among conveyor devices associated with a location of an emergency that moves in the same direction as an escape direction to continue moving [Para. 40, “in the event of a fire, the control unit 16a…may operate the passenger conveyor in an upward or downward direction”]; and stop a conveyor device among the conveyor devices associated with the location of the emergency that moves towards a floor where the emergency occurs from moving towards the floor [Para. 26, “when the control unit 16a receives fire information, it controls the motor 15, etc. to temporarily stop the operation of the passenger conveyor 1, and then, based on the floor information and position information included in the fire information…maintains the operation of the passenger conveyor 1 in a stopped state”]; wherein, the conveyor devices associated with the location of the emergency includes a conveyor device with either its conveying entrance or its conveying exit located on the floor where the emergency occurs (in Figure 2, conveyors 1-3A and 1-4B have an entrance or exit on the fourth floor). While a processor is not explicitly disclosed, the presence of a processor is implied, since the disaster prevention center and control units receive information and use that information to control the passenger conveyors. As the claim contains limitations towards the conveyor devices (e.g., “the conveyor devices associated with the location of the emergency includes a conveyor device with either its conveying entrance or its conveying exit located on the floor where the emergency occurs”), the claim is considered to require the conveying devices as part of the control apparatus.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, ‘021 teaches the processor is further configured to: determine a distance of each conveyor device associated with the location of the emergency from the location of the emergency [Para. 27, “when the control unit 16a receives fire information, it determines from the floor information…whether the floor on which the fire occurred and the floor on which the passenger conveyor 1 having the control unit 16a is installed are separated by more than a first predetermined number of floors”]; if there is a conveyor device with the determined distance less than a distance threshold, stop the conveyor device from moving [Para. 28, “if the floor where the fire occurred is the same as the floor where the passenger conveyor 1 is installed…control unit 16a maintains the passenger conveyor 1 in a stopped state”]; and, if there is a conveyor device with the determined distance greater than the distance threshold and moving in the same direction as the escape direction, control the conveyor device to continue moving [Para. 34, “the floor on which the passenger conveyor 1 is installed is far from the floor where the fire occurred…the control unit 16a controls the motor 15, etc. to raise the passenger conveyor 1”].
Regarding Claim(s) 10, ‘021 teaches the conveyor devices include escalators [Para. 10, “Passenger conveyor belt 1 is an escalator”. The language “and/or moving walks, in which for the moving walks, the floor where the emergency occurs is the location where the emergency occurs” is not required by the claim because the claim uses the term “and/or”. The prior art discloses an escalator, thereby anticipating the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, ‘021 discloses the method of claim 1; therefore, ‘021 is considered to teach a conveyor device configured to perform the method of claim 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, ‘021 teaches a non-transitory computer storage medium, with instructions stored thereon, where the method according to claim 1 is implemented when the instructions are executed. The disaster control center and control units perform the method of claim 1. ‘021 further teaches a flowchart (Figure 4) for the control of the passenger conveyor, which implies a storage medium with instructions stored thereon.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘021 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese Document (JP2006016148A, copy provided by applicant, machine translation attached, hereafter ‘148).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, ‘021 teaches determining a distance of each conveyor device associated with the location of the emergency from the location of the emergency [Para. 27, “when the control unit 16a receives fire information, it determines from the floor information…whether the floor on which the fire occurred and the floor on which the passenger conveyor 1 having the control unit 16a is installed are separated by more than a first predetermined number of floors”]. ‘021 fails to teach if there is a conveyor device among the conveyor devices with the determined distance greater than the distance threshold and moving towards the floor where the emergency occurs, controlling the conveyor device to move in an opposite direction. ‘148 teaches a fire control operation system for a passenger conveyor and teaches reversing the direction of a passenger conveyor [Abstract, “If the direction of operation is the reverse direction, the passenger conveyors are decelerated and stopped gently, and then slowly started in the backward and reverse direction for evacuation operation”]. As ‘021 takes into account the distance a conveyor is from the fire, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of ‘148 to modify ‘021 to control a conveyor device to move the conveyor device in the opposite direction in order to move passengers away from the source of emergency and towards an evacuation location.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, ‘021 teaches the processor is further configured to: determine a distance of each conveyor device associated with the location of the emergency from the location of the emergency [Para. 27, “when the control unit 16a receives fire information, it determines from the floor information…whether the floor on which the fire occurred and the floor on which the passenger conveyor 1 having the control unit 16a is installed are separated by more than a first predetermined number of floors”]; ‘021 fails to teach if there is a conveyor device among the conveyor devices with the determined distance greater than the distance threshold and moving towards the floor where the emergency occurs, control the conveyor device to move in an opposite direction. ‘148 teaches a fire control operation system for a passenger conveyor and teaches reversing the direction of a passenger conveyor [Abstract, “If the direction of operation is the reverse direction, the passenger conveyors are decelerated and stopped gently, and then slowly started in the backward and reverse direction for evacuation operation”]. As ‘021 takes into account the distance a conveyor is from the fire, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of ‘148 to modify ‘021 to control a conveyor device to move the conveyor device in the opposite direction in order to move passengers away from the source of emergency and towards an evacuation location.
Claim(s) 4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘021 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of British Document (GB2312057A, English language copy attached, hereafter, ‘057).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, ‘021 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach outputting a signal indicating a running status of the conveyor device; and/or sending a signal to a control system of the building where the emergency occurs to indicate the conveyor device still running or stopped; wherein, the running status is one of going-up, going-down, and stopped. ‘057 teaches a supervisory system for a passenger conveyor (escalator) and teaches sending a signal to a control system (control equipment 15) to indicate the conveyor is still running or stopped [Page 4:15-Page 5:4]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of ‘057 to modify ‘021 to output a signal indicating a running status of the conveyor device; and/or send a signal to a control system of the building where the emergency occurs to indicate the conveyor device still running or stopped; wherein, the running status is one of going-up, going-down, and stopped. This provides a method of relaying information to the necessary personnel.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, ‘021 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the processor is further configured to: generate a signal indicating a running status of a conveyor device; and/or control the communication component to send a signal to a control system of the building where the emergency occurs to indicate the conveyor device still in running; wherein, the running status is one of going-up, going-down, and stopped. ‘057 teaches a supervisory system for a passenger conveyor (escalator) and teaches a communication component (transmitter 13) configured to send a signal to a control system (control equipment 15) to indicate the conveyor is still running or stopped [Page 4:15-Page 5:4]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of ‘057 to modify ‘021 to configure the processor to generate a signal indicating a running status of a conveyor device; and/or control the communication component to send a signal to a control system of the building where the emergency occurs to indicate the conveyor device still in running; wherein, the running status is one of going-up, going-down, and stopped. This provides a method of relaying information to the necessary personnel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JPH10182053 discloses a disaster prevention system to control an escalator during a fire. CN201942409U discloses a fire alarm emergency device for an escalator. USPN 10479653 discloses a monitoring system for a passenger conveyor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. 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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights