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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The fare gate as a whole is not shown in figure 1B, however, the reference numeral 102 is used to indicate the figure. As it is clear from figure 1A that the paddle shaft 106 and protection device 108 are part of the gate and both shaft and device are shown in figure 1B the reference numeral 102 and reference arrow should be removed.
Figure 2 shows the paddle shaft extending in the incorrect direction. It is clear from figure 1B the shaft extends axially from gear 110, however, in figure 2 the shaft is shown extending radially. The shaft may either be shown as the hidden line circle in the center of gear 110 or not at all in figure 2 but should not be shown as is extending radially. If the structure indicated as the shaft is in fact paddle 104, then the reference numeral may be changed to indicate this.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 5 recites “the protection device to lock the paddle shaft in case of fare evasion at the fare gate”. The gate is locked in response to torque applied to the gate, the protection device does not appear to be able to detect the difference between torque applied for fare evasion or torque applied for any other reason and as such the locking of the shaft does not appear to be in response to fare evasion as claimed. For purposes of examination claim will be interpreted broadly as in case of sensing torque.
A similar issue occurs in claims 9 and 17.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The same holds for dependent claims 18-20, which are substantial duplicates of dependent claims 6-8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 8112938 to Bolduc (hereinafter Bolduc) in view of US patent 8171671 to Gallenschutz (hereinafter Gallen) and DE 202022104146 to Magnetic Autocontrol GmbH (hereinafter Magnetic).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, the transmission system (claim 1) or transmission device (claim 17) is shown in Bolduc in figures 1-25 with
a motor (52) that rotates a paddle shaft (24) to drive a gate paddle (9);
the gate paddle (9) operable to allow transmission through the fare gate (10, fare is intended use); and
the protection device (claim 1) or protection mechanism (claim 17) to lock the paddle shaft (24) in case of security issue (further taught column 9 lines 27-31 and column 12 lines 9-14), the protection device including:
a locking mechanism (figures 3 and 5) integrated at the paddle shaft (24), wherein the locking mechanism is operable to:
move a shaft arm (31) of the paddle shaft via a solenoid (26) when a protection event occurs (further taught column 12 lines 9-14);
lock the paddle shaft (24) to stop rotation of the gate paddle (9); and
block transmission through the fare gate.
However, Bolduc only shows one shaft arm and does not teach protection in case of torque detection.
Plural shaft arms are shown in Gallen in figures 1-2 where shaft arms (42 and 44) engage a shaft protrusion (40, similar to 44 and 44’ in Bolduc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the transmission system of Bolduc with the plurality of arms of Gallen because the plural arms allow for locking force to be applied in two directions to better hold the shaft.
Protection based on torque detection is shown in Magnetic in figures 1-3 where torque sensor (15) detects torque on paddle shaft (2) and based on such protection device (7) activates protective measures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the transmission system of Bolduc with the protection based on torque of Magnetic because protection based on torque would allow for detection of other security threats and thus allow the gate of Bolduc to be used in different situations, thereby expanding the market for the gate of Bolduc.
Regarding claim 2, the gate paddle (9), when rotated, allows transmission through the fare gate (10), and blocks transmission through the fare gate, when not in rotation in Bolduc.
Regarding claim 3, the fare gate (10) includes one paddle (9) per aisle.
Two (i.e. a plurality) paddles would be design choice duplication of parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the transmission system of Bolduc, having the plural arms of Gallen and the protection based on torque of Magnetic, with plural paddles because plural paddles allows for the use of narrower paddles (i.e. two paddles cover the width of the aisle rather than one) and thereby can limit torque on the paddles.
Regarding claim 4, as modified above with Magnetic, the transmission system detects fare evasion when torque applied to the paddle shaft (24) reaches a preset threshold in Bolduc.
Regarding claim 5, as modified above with Magnetic, the protection device is activated when the torque applied to the paddle shaft (24) reaches the preset threshold in Bolduc.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, as modified above with Magnetic, the preset threshold is defined based on an amount of force applied the gate paddle (9) in Bolduc.
However, Bolduc only shows one paddle.
Two (i.e. a plurality) paddles would be design choice duplication of parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the transmission system of Bolduc, having the plural arms of Gallen and the protection based on torque of Magnetic, with plural paddles because plural paddles allows for the use of narrower paddles (i.e. two paddles cover the width of the aisle rather than one) and thereby can limit torque on the paddles.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the gate paddle (9) allows transmission through the fare gate when power supply to the solenoid (26) is cut off in Bolduc.
Regarding claims 9-16, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus detailed above.
Claim(s) 8, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolduc, Gallen, and Magnetic as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of NL 2005402 to Peeters (hereinafter Peeters).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the locking mechanism (figures 3 and 5) limits torque transmission to the motor (52) in Bolduc.
However, Bolduc does not show a plurality of gears engaging the motor.
A plurality of gears is shown in Peeters in figures 1-2 where motor has motor gear (47) engaging shaft gear (49) for driving a gate (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the transmission system of Bolduc, having the plural arms of Gallen and the protection based on torque of Magnetic, with the plurality of gears of Peeters because both arm transmissions (shown in Bolduc) and gear transmissions (shown in Peeters) were known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known transmission for another using known methods with no change in function.
Regarding claim 16, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights