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 § 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)(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, 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsuo et al. (US 6,604,621).
Matsuo et al. show a modular moving walkway transit system in Figure 1 which includes two or more walkway modules which may move at a different or same speed, the modules are positioned linearly adjacent and the belts have a return.
Re claim 5, inherent with modular systems is the ability to replace a module with a spare replacement one.
Re claim 11, the end modules and the center moule are all interchangeable.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo et al. in view of Christensen (US 5,609,238).
Matsuo et al. is silent as to the modules being locked together. However, shown by Christensen in Figure 1 is a mechanical latch 70 for interconnecting modules. To have such a latch on Matsuo et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as it is common knowledge to secure modules together to prevent undesired movement.
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo et al. in view of Dean (4,232,776).
Matsuo et al. do not expressly show or disclose a specific control system. However, shown by Dean in Figure 8 is just such a control system for a modular walkway of variable speed. To use the control system shown by Dean on Matsuo et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as it is understood that there must be such a control system on Matsuo et al. in order to control all the modules and their variable speeds.
Re claim 7, Matsuo et al. do not disclose color-coded visual cues that correspond to speed. However, taught by Dean are exactly such clues, see Figure 5e and column 9, lines 43-53. To include such visual clues on Matsuo et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as it increase the safety of the passengers.
Re claim 9, the control system of Dean regulates speeds simultaneously.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 8 and 10 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cantrell, Jr.et al. (US 12,280,956) shows a magnetic latch assembly for a modular system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R BIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6910. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 to 4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gene Crawford, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-6911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/JAMES R BIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651 06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights