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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments received 09/29/2025 have been fully considered. Claims 1-3, 7, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-6 as set forth below in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(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.
4. Claims 1-3, 7, 14, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nomura et al. (US 4984659 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nomura discloses a method for controlling an elevator provided with a machinery brake (8 of Fig. 1) and a machinery brake controller (Fig. 5) controlling the machinery brake, the method comprising the steps of: commanding the brake controller to open the machinery brake with a brake open command (claim 1: “said brake coil is energized in response to a start command signal, thereby to release the braking force”; see also col. 7, lines 10-25); measuring (via current sensor 21 of Figs. 1 and 2, numeral 23 of Fig. 2 designates the output amplifier of the current sensor 21; note, the combination of 21/23 measure and outputs the current i of the circuit of a brake coil 14 instantly and continuously as long as there is a current flowing through this coil 14) the brake current of the machinery brake (col. 4, lines 47-51; claim 1: “current sensing means for sensing change in a current of said brake coil as based on change in an inductance thereof after the current has reached a predetermined value”) over a predetermined time after the brake open command (col. 4, lines 25-31: “A counter 30 receives a RESET signal upon the closure of a start command contact 41 in FIG. 1 and counts clock pulses (C/P) since that time so as to deliver a high potential signal (hereinbelow, termed "H signal") when a predetermined value has been reached. Thus, the counter 30 functions as a timer means”; col. 5, lines 6-10: “the counter 30 is timed for counting after the closure of the start command contact 41, and it is operated at a time t.sub.5 to produce an H signal at point d”); comparing the measured brake current to a predetermined threshold value (col. 4, lines 33-37: “transistor 32 functions as first current detection means. … so as to operate the transistor 32 when the output of the output amplifier 23 is not less than the voltage V.sub.k.”); and when the measured brake current does not meet the predetermined threshold value (e.g., when the output of the amplifier 23 is less than the voltage V.sub.k., the transistor 32 will not be operated as an amplifier and will not be rendered conductive) within the predetermined time period (claim 6: “a fault finding circuit which is actuated when the detection signal is not delivered upon lapse of a predetermined time interval after generation of the start command signal”; see also col. 5, lines 34-41 and 53-56), then generating a signal indicating failure of the machinery brake and cancelling the elevator run sequence, else executing the next step in the elevator run sequence (col. 5, lines 36-41, 53-68).
Regarding claim 2, Nomura discloses: wherein, before the commanding step, initiating a new elevator run sequence based on a received service request (col. 4, lines 25-27, 47-54; col. 7, line 66 – col. 8, line 17; see also discussion of Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Nomura discloses: wherein the predetermined threshold value of the brake current is determined based on a value of the brake current that is needed for opening the specific machinery brake used in the elevator (col. 4, lines 34-37: “Resistors 33, 34 and 35 are set at optimal resistances so as to operate the transistor 32 when the output of the output amplifier 23 is not less than the voltage V.sub.k.”; see also col. 4, lines 47-54; col. 5, lines 34-40).
Regarding claims 7 and 19-20, Nomura discloses: wherein the brake current is measured in a common branch (of the DC power source 22) supplying current to the brake controller (see discussion of current sensor 21).
Regarding claim 14, Nomura discloses: an elevator comprising: a main controller (col. 7, lines 10-15: by inherency, there must be a main controller for the elevator control apparatus as shown in Fig. 1); and a machinery brake controller (Fig. 5) controlling a machinery brake, wherein the main controller controls the elevator according to claim 1 (see discussion of Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al. in view of Saarelainen et al. (EP 3190076 A1, as cited in the previous office action).
Regarding claim 15, Nomura does not mention explicitly: a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium, and comprising program instructions, which, when run on a computer, causes the computer to perform the method as claimed in claim 1.
Saarelainen disclose a method for controlling an elevator provided with a machinery brake (35) and a machinery brake controller (50) controlling the machinery brake. Saarelainen further discloses a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium, and comprising program instructions, which, when run on a computer, causes the computer to perform the method for controlling an elevator provided with the machinery brake (35) and the machinery brake controller (para. 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nomura to incorporate Saarelainen’s teaching of a computer program product for implementing the Nomura method. Doing so would, for example, make the execution of the method to be more reliable for moving an elevator to a landing in case of an emergency can be carried out (Saarelainen, para. 0005).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4-6, 8 and 17-18 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.
8. Claims 9-13 are allowed.
Reason for Allowance
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 4-6, 8 and 17-18 is the inclusion of the limitations: wherein the machinery brake comprises a first brake and a second brake, the method comprising the steps of: commanding the brake controller to open only the first brake; measuring the brake current of the first brake; and when the measured brake current to the first brake meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold within a predetermined time period, then commanding the brake controller to close the first brake and to open the second brake, else commanding the brake controller to close both the first brake and the second brake, aborting the run and issuing a fault code; measuring the brake current to the second brake; and when the measured brake current to the second brake meets or exceeds the predetermined threshold within the predetermined time period, then commanding the brake controller to open the first brake, else commanding the brake controller to close both the first brake and the second brake, aborting the run and issuing a fault code. It is these limitations found in each of the claims 4-6, 8 and 17-18 in combination with the rest of the limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant, that have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which make these claims distinguish over the prior art of record.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 9-13 is the inclusion of the limitations: commanding a machinery brake controller to open only the first brake; measuring the brake current of the first brake; measuring the movement of the elevator; when the measured brake current meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold within a predetermined time period and no movement of the elevator is detected, then commanding the machinery brake controller to close both the first brake and the second brake, and indicating a successful passing of the brake test; and when the measured brake current does not meet or exceed the predetermined threshold in the predetermined time period or if movement of the elevator is detected, then commanding the machinery brake controller to close both the first brake and the second brake, aborting the run, and issuing a fault code. It is these limitations found in each of the claims 9-13 in combination with the rest of the limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant, that have not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which make these claims distinguish over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANCHUN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5981. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on (571)270-7938. 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.
/JIANCHUN QIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837