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 § 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) 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean (US 4,232,776) in view of Matsuo et al. (US 6,604,621).
Dean shows a conveyance system having at least three modular sections 14 positioned linearly adjacent which move at a same or different speed, a motor electrically drives the sections and each module has a handrail 12 that moves at a similar speed as each section (see column 7, lines 30-34). Not specifically disclosed is the use of belts, rather rollers are used. However, shown by Matsuo et al. is a similar modular walkway system which includes the use of belts in modules (see Figure 4). To include belts on Dean would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as belts and rollers are alternate equivalents and it is extremely well known and conventional in the art of conveying to substitute one for the other.
Re claim 2, inherent is interlocking the modules as ease of installation is a goal of Dean.
Re claim 3, disclosed is a control system which regulates speed of each module.
Re claim 4, inherent is that the modules need to be 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 7, see column 9, lines 30-42 regarding the use of colors for a visual medium.
Re claim 9, speed regulation and communication occur simultaneously.
Re claim 11, modules are both references are interchangeable.
Re claim 12, disclosed by Dean are accelerating modules, full speed modules and decelerating modules.
Re claim 14, as per claim 11 rejection.
Re claim 15, as per claim 2 rejection.
Re claim 16, there is a control system which regulates speed of the modules.
Re claim 17, as per claim 9 rejection.
Re claim 19, speed may be changed by the control system.
Re claim 20, as per claim 4 rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 10, 13 and 18 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.
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 02/05/2026