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, 2, 4, 5, 9 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 conveyance system having at least three belts (21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 51, 52, 53) supported by at least one module, each belt moves at a different or same speed, the belts are positioned linearly adjacent, each belt is shown in Figure 1 with a walkway return, each belt is driven by an electric motor and each belt has handrails (31, 32, 33, 34, 61, 62 and 63) which are driven at the same speeds as the belts in their module.
Re claim 2, inherent is that the modules are locked together so as to prevent relative movement.
Re claim 4, inherent is that the conveyor system is leveled either manually or automatically.
Re claim 5, the modular nature of each reference is such that spare modules may be inserted and removed as necessary.
Re claim 9, speed regulation and communication occur simultaneously.
Re claim 11, some identical modules may be 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) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo et al. in view of Dean (US 4,232,776).
Matsuo et al. does not specifically disclose a control system. However, Dean discloses the use of a control system in a modular conveyance system (see Abstract, Figure 8 and column 10, lines 10-24). To use such a control system 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 as it is understood that Matsuo et al. must have a control system to control the various speeds of the different sections.
Re claim 7, Matsuo et al. do not disclose using a visual medium. However, disclosed by Dean in column 9, lines 30-42 is the use of just such a visual medium. To include such onto Matsuo et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as it will provide increased safety for the passengers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 08/25/2026
Prosecution Insights