DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicants’ amendment filed November 19, 2025. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending with claims 4, 5, 13 and 14 being previously withdrawn. An action on the merits is as follows.
Objections to claims 10 and 18 have been withdrawn.
Rejections of claims 10-12 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the limitation “or repair or replacement of the two or more tension members”. This limitation should be changed to state “or repair or replacement of the at least two tension members” for consistency
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikkonen et al. (US 2018/0134520 A1) in view of Kattainen et al. (US 2020/0223667 A1), further in view of Lindegger (US 2017/0267489 A1) and Evert et al. (US 2021/0094800 A1).
Claims 1, 10 and 18: Mikkonen et al. discloses a method of wear detection of a supporting structure of an elevator system, a monitoring system for a support structure of an elevator car of an elevator system, and an elevator system including an elevator car and a support structure operably connected to the elevator car and one or more sheaves of an elevator system, and configured to move the elevator car along a hoistway of the elevator system (page 2 paragraph [0023]), where steel ropes of the support/supporting structure (traction belt)/elevator system components (page 1 paragraph [0012]) are engagable/operably connected with a monitoring unit (means) to measure an electrical resistance of at least one tension member (page 1 paragraph [0017]). The steel ropes (2, 2’) are shown in FIG. 1 to each comprise at least two tension members within groups (G1, G2) (page 3 paragraph [0043]). A threshold resistance (monitoring limit) is set (page 3 paragraph [0044]), and the measured electrical resistance is compared to the threshold resistance (page 1 paragraph [0015]), a result of the comparison indicative of wear (condition) of the at least two tension members (page 2 paragraph [0027]). If the measured electrical resistance exceeds the threshold resistance, warning information of a maintenance need is immediately received for evaluating the support/supporting structure for further action (page 1 paragraph [0015]). The at least two tension members are electrically connected to each other in an electrically serial relationship (page 3 paragraph [0043]), as can be seen from FIG. 1. The at least two tension members are enclosed in the supporting structure (page 1 paragraph [0012]). Therefore the supporting structure includes a jacket at least partially enclosing the at least two tension members, as is recognized in the art. This reference fails to disclose if the measured electrical resistance is less than the threshold resistance, to operate the elevator system for a selected time interval and if the measured electrical resistance exceeds the threshold resistance, to evaluate the support/supporting structure for further action including one or more of remeasuring the electrical resistance, or repair or replacement of the at least two tension members. This reference further fails to disclose a measured electrical resistance to be indicative of contact between the at least two tension members and an electrically conductive sheave of the elevator system, thus indicating wear of the jacket. This reference fails to disclose the threshold resistance to be determined utilizing one or more indicators of an actual traffic pattern of the elevator car along a hoistway, and the actual traffic pattern to be cycles of passage of portions of the at least two tension members over the one or more sheaves.
However Kattainen et al. teaches a method of wear detection of a supporting structure of an elevator system, a monitoring system for a support structure of an elevator car of an elevator system, and an elevator system, where a measured value (change value) is compared to a threshold (limit for allowed change), and a result of the comparison is indicative of wear (condition) of at least one tension member (page 1 paragraph [0016]). The measured value is obtained at a selected time interval (once a day, once a week) (page 3 paragraph [0041]). Therefore if the measured value is less than the threshold, the elevator system is operated normally for the selected time interval until a new measured value is obtained, as is recognized in the art. If the measured value meets or exceeds the threshold (page 7 paragraph [0069]), an indication is generated (page 6 paragraph [0062]) which instructs a maintenance personnel to evaluate the support structure for replacement (pages 6-7 paragraph [0063]), and therefore replacement of the tension member.
Given the teachings of Kattainen et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, monitoring system, and elevator system disclosed in Mikkonen et al. with providing, if the measured electrical resistance is less than the threshold resistance, to operate the elevator system for a selected time interval and if the measured electrical resistance exceeds the threshold resistance, to evaluate the support structure for replacement of the suspension member, and therefore the tension members. Doing so would provide “an automated method for defining the condition of the [support/supporting structure]. This also allows that the monitoring of a condition of the [support/supporting structure] may be performed remotely, which in turn improves at least partly the availability of the elevators, because less maintenance breaks for performing condition inspections for the [support/supporting structure] are needed” as taught in Kattainen et al. (page 7 paragraph [0066]). These references fail to disclose a measured electrical resistance to be indicative of contact between the at least two tension members and an electrically conductive sheave of the elevator system, thus indicating wear of the jacket. These references further fail to disclose the threshold resistance to be determined utilizing one or more indicators of an actual traffic pattern of the elevator car along a hoistway, and the actual traffic pattern to be cycles of passage of portions of the at least two tension members over the one or more sheaves.
However Lindegger teaches a method of wear detection of a supporting structure of an elevator system, a monitoring system for a support structure of an elevator car of an elevator system, and an elevator system, where an electrical resistance is measured (page 1 paragraph [0012]) and is indicative of contact between a tension member and an electrically conductive sheave of the elevator system, thus indicating wear of a jacket of a supporting structure (suspension means) (pages 1-2 paragraph [0016]).
Given the teachings of Lindegger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, monitoring system, and elevator system disclosed in Mikkonen et al. as modified by Kattainen et al. with providing a measured electrical resistance to be indicative of contact between the at least two tension members and an electrically conductive sheave of the elevator system, thus indicating wear of the jacket. Doing so would have “the advantage that another condition of the [supporting structure] can thereby be monitored”, i.e. “in the case of an exposed tension member or a wire protruding from the jacket” as taught in Lindegger (pages 1-2 paragraph [0016]). These references fail to disclose the threshold resistance to be determined utilizing one or more indicators of an actual traffic pattern of the elevator car along a hoistway, and the actual traffic pattern to be cycles of passage of portions of the at least two tension members over the one or more sheaves.
However Evert et al. teaches a method of wear detection of a supporting structure of an elevator system, a monitoring system for a support structure of an elevator car of an elevator system, and an elevator system, where a threshold corresponding to a degree of wear is determined utilizing one or more indicators of an actual traffic pattern of the elevator car along a hoistway as cycles of passage of portions of the supporting structure (belt 606) over one or more sheaves (page 8 paragraph [0063]).
Given the teachings of Evert et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, monitoring system, and elevator system disclosed in Mikkonen et al. as modified by Kattainen et al. and Lindegger with providing the threshold resistance to be determined utilizing one or more indicators of an actual traffic pattern of the elevator car along a hoistway, and the actual traffic pattern to be cycles of passage of portions of the supporting structure, and therefore at least two tension members over the one or more sheaves. Doing so would allow the degree of wear of each section of the supporting structure to be known in order to “maintain the safety of the elevator system [since] an irregularity is more likely to occur in higher-wear sections of the [supporting structure] than in lower-wear sections” and therefore can provide “more resources dedicated to monitoring the integrity of high-wear sections of the [supporting structure]” as taught in Evert et al. (page 8 paragraph [0064]).
Claims 6 and 15: Mikkonen et al. modified by Kattainen et al., Lindegger and Evert et al. discloses a method and monitoring system where the threshold is determined based on obtained values representing an elongation of the support/supporting structure, as stated above. The monitoring unit is shown in Kattainen et al. to be configured to redetermine the obtained values representing the elongation of the support/supporting structure, and therefore the threshold resistance, at one or more selected intervals (once a day or once a week) (page 3 paragraph [0041]).
Claims 8 and 17: Mikkonen et al. modified by Kattainen et al., Lindegger and Evert et al. discloses a method and monitoring system as stated above, where the monitoring unit is configured to remeasure the electrical resistance at one or more selected measurement intervals, as shown in Kattainen et al. (page 3 paragraph [0041]).
Claim 20: Mikkonen et al. modified by Kattainen et al., Lindegger and Evert et al. discloses an elevator system where the support structure is a belt, as stated above.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikkonen et al. (US 2018/0134520 A1) modified by Kattainen et al. (US 2020/0223667 A1), Lindegger (US 2017/0267489 A1) and Evert et al. (US 2021/0094800 A1) as applied to claims above, further in view of Tyni et al. (US 9,714,155 B2).
Claims 2, 11 and 19: Mikkonen et al. modified by Kattainen et al., Lindegger and Evert et al. discloses a method, monitoring system, and elevator system as stated above, but fails to disclose the one or more indicators to include a count of elevator car starts from a selected landing floor of the elevator system.
However Tyni et al. teaches a method of wear detection of a supporting structure of an elevator system, a monitoring system for a support structure of an elevator car of an elevator system, and an elevator system, where a count of elevator car starts from a selected landing floor of the elevator system is used for a comparison, results of which indicate wear of at least one tension member (column 1 line 61 through column 2 line 20).
Given the teachings of Tyni et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, monitoring system, and elevator system disclosed in Mikkonen et al. as modified by Kattainen et al., Lindegger and Evert et al. with providing the one or more indicators to include a count of elevator car starts from a selected landing floor of the elevator system. Doing so would provide a simple method “as it takes account in a minimalistic fashion all the relevant data that is needed to provide a number that is simple to compare … [and] does not necessitate counting of great number of different type of occurrences, nor does it necessitate complicated steps of discrimination. Thereby, it can use fundamental data easily obtainable form any elevator, the data being such that it is already available in many existing elevators” as taught in Tyni et al. (column 2 lines 25-34).
Claims 3 and 12: Mikkonen et al. modified by Kattainen et al., Lindegger, Evert et al. and Tyni et al. discloses a method and monitoring system as stated above, where the monitoring system/unit is shown in Tyni et al. to be provided by a computer program, run on a microprocessor unit (11), which is operably connected to a main controller (elevator control 10) of the elevator system for providing the count to the monitoring system/unit (column 6 lines 55-62).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikkonen et al. (US 2018/0134520 A1) modified by Kattainen et al. (US 2020/0223667 A1), Lindegger (US 2017/0267489 A1) and Evert et al. (US 2021/0094800 A1) as applied to claims above, further in view of Stucky et al. (US 7,409,870 B2).
Claims 7 and 16: Mikkonen et al. modified by Kattainen et al., Lindegger and Evert et al. discloses a method and monitoring system as stated above, where an amount of wear of a support/supporting structure is substantially small for most of the lifetime of the support/supporting structure, and increases as it approaches the end of the lifetime, as shown in Kattainen et al. (page 2 paragraph [0036]). These references fail to disclose a duration of the one or more selected intervals to change over a service life of the support/supporting structure.
However Stucky et al. teaches a method of wear detection of a supporting structure of an elevator system and a monitoring system for a support structure of an elevator car of an elevator system, where characteristics of the monitoring changes over a service life of the support/supporting structure according to periods of higher use (column 4 lines 35-38).
Given the teachings of Stucky et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, monitoring system, and elevator system disclosed in Mikkonen et al. as modified by Kattainen et al., Lindegger and Evert et al. with providing a duration of the one or more selected intervals to change over a service life of the support/supporting structure according to periods of higher use. Doing so would allow the support/supporting structure to “be replaced with a new [support/supporting structure] already before the [wear] starts to increase” at an end of the lifetime, as taught in Kattainen et al. (page 2 paragraph [0036]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 December 15, 2025