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 July 9, 2025. Claims 1-16 are pending with claims 3, 7, 8 and 14 being previously withdrawn. An action on the merits is as follows.
Objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Objections to claims 6, 11 and 13 have been withdrawn.
Rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn.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 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 2, 4-6, 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogl (US 8,602,171 B2) in view of Natarajan (US 10,322,907 B2).
Claims 1 and 10: Vogl discloses an elevator system and a method for moving an elevator car shown in Fig. 1 to comprise a hoistway (elevator shaft 1) extending between a plurality of landings (levels E1-E4), an elevator car (5) configured for moving along the hoistway between the plurality of landings (column 5 lines 62-66) and an elevator drive (drive unit 4) configured for moving the elevator car along the hoistway, where an elevator control controls the elevator drive, as is recognized in the art. The elevator control further is configured for selectively operating in a normal operation mode or in a maintenance mode (column 2, lines 16-19, column 5 lines 21-24). The elevator control is switched into a maintenance set-up mode (pre-maintenance mode) in response to receiving a maintenance mode set-up signal (operating a landing call receiving means in a predetermined identification pattern) provided to the elevator control, switched into a maintenance mode in response to detecting an opening of a door (landing door) providing access to the hoistway (column 3 lines 53-58), and controlled to move the elevator car to a predetermined stop position specified by the input signal when switched into the maintenance mode, in response to an input signal from the elevator control (column 3 lines 45-48). The elevator drive is further controlled for moving the elevator car in accordance with the maintenance mode in response to detecting a predefined call button being operated for at least a predetermined period of time (column 6 lines 27-53). This reference fails to disclose the elevator car to be moved at a normal operating speed in accordance with the normal operation mode to the specified position when switched into the maintenance set-up mode, and the elevator system to switch into the maintenance mode when the elevator car has reached the specific position.
However Natarajan an elevator system and a method for moving an elevator car, where a speed of an elevator car in a maintenance mode (manual control mode) is substantially lower than a normal operating speed (column 8 lines 33-37).
Given the teachings of Natarajan, 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 elevator system and a method disclosed in Vogl with providing a speed in the maintenance mode to be substantially lower than a normal operating speed of the elevator car. The elevator car then would be moved at a normal operating speed in accordance with the normal operation mode to the specified position when switched into the maintenance set-up mode and before switching into the maintenance mode. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elevator car to be moved to the specified position when switched into the maintenance set-up mode, and the elevator system to switch into the maintenance mode when the elevator car has reached the specific position since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Doing so would provide “the [maintenance] mode [to be] well suitable for safe maintenance drive of the elevator as taught in Natarajan (column 8 lines 37-38), while allowing a maintenance technician to reroute the elevator car to another location more quickly prior to switching to the maintenance mode when an incorrect position was mistakenly inputted, since “when in [maintenance mode], the elevator speed is typically lower than the nominal speed of the elevator car” as taught in Natarajan (column 1 lines 43-47).
Claims 2 and 11: Vogl modified by Natarajan discloses an elevator system and method where the elevator control controls the elevator drive to move the elevator car in response to a predefined call button being operated for at least a predetermined period of time, as stated above. This reference fails to disclose when switched into the maintenance mode, the elevator control to be configured to control the elevator drive to move the elevator car until it reaches a predetermined position within the hoistway and/or until the call button is released, if the call button has been operated at least for the predetermined period of time, and/or the elevator control to be configured to control the elevator drive to move the elevator car in accordance with the normal operation mode if the call button (has been operated shorter than the predetermined period of time.
However Natarajan teaches an elevator system and method of moving an elevator car, wherein when in a maintenance mode (manual control mode), an elevator control controls an elevator drive to move an elevator car until a call button is released (column 3 lines 38-47).
Given the teachings of Natarajan, 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 elevator system and method disclosed in Vogl with providing when switched into the maintenance mode, the elevator control to be configured to control the elevator drive to move the elevator car until the call button is released, if the call button has been operated at least for the predetermined period of time. Doing so would allow the elevator to change directions and be manually controlled to move a distance upwards or downwards, as taught in Natarajan (column 3 lines 44-46).
Claims 4 and 12: Vogl modified by Natarajan discloses an elevator system and method as stated above, where the elevator control is disclosed in Vogl to receive the maintenance mode set-up signal via a service panel (landing call receiving means) electrically connected with the elevator control (column 3 lines 50-52).
Claim 5: Vogl modified by Natarajan discloses an elevator system wherein before switching into the maintenance mode, the elevator car is moved at a normal operating speed in accordance with the normal operation mode, as stated above. The elevator control applies a first set of safety conditions (operates elevator at a nominal speed) when the elevator car is moved in accordance with the normal operation mode, and applies a second set of safety conditions (operates elevator at a substantially lower than nominal speed) when the elevator car is moved in accordance with the maintenance mode (manual mode) as shown in Natarajan (column 1 lines 43-45).
Claim 6: Vogl modified by Natarajan discloses an elevator system as stated above, wherein when controlling the elevator drive for moving the elevator car in accordance with the maintenance mode, the elevator control ignores signals of at least one sensor applied when controlling the elevator drive for moving the elevator car in the normal operation mode, where the at least one sensor includes a door sensor configured for detecting whether a door is open or close, as is recognized in the art.
Claims 9 and 15: Vogl modified by Natarajan discloses an elevator system and method as stated above, where the elevator control is disclosed in Vogl to switch back into the normal operation mode when it is detected that a time lapsed between two successive operations (operating the landing call receiving means and opening the landing door) exceeds a predetermined threshold (specific time period) (column 3 lines 25-31). Therefore the elevator control detects the time lapsed between the two operations.
Claim 13: Vogl modified by Natarajan discloses a method wherein before switching into the maintenance mode, the elevator car is moved at a normal operating speed in accordance with the normal operation mode, as stated above. A first set of safety conditions (operates elevator at a substantially lower than nominal speed) is applied when the elevator car is controlled to move in accordance with the maintenance mode (manual mode), and a second set of safety conditions (operates elevator at a nominal speed) different from the first set of safety conditions is applied when the elevator car is controlled to move at a normal operating speed in accordance with the normal operation mode as shown in Natarajan (column 1 lines 43-45). When the elevator car is moved in accordance with the maintenance mode, signals provided by at least one sensor are ignored, where the at least one sensor includes a door sensor configured for detecting whether a door is open or close, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogl (US 8,602,171 B2) modified by Natarajan (US 10,322,907 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Michel (US 2022/0177270 A1).
Claim 16: Vogl modified by Natarajan discloses an elevator system as stated above, wherein when controlling the elevator drive for moving the elevator car in accordance with the maintenance mode, the elevator control ignores signals of at least one sensor applied when controlling the elevator drive for moving the elevator car in the normal operation mode, where the at least one sensor includes a door sensor configured for detecting whether a door is open or close, as is recognized in the art. These references fail to disclose the at least one sensor to include a ladder detection sensor for detecting a presence of a ladder within the hoistway.
However Michel teaches an elevator system, where at least one sensor includes a ladder detection sensor for detecting whether a ladder is correctly stored against a side wall of the hoistway (elevator shaft 12) (page 3 paragraph [0042]). The ladder detection sensor then would detect a presence of a ladder within the hoistway other than against the side wall in a storage position.
Given the teachings of Michel, 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 elevator system and method disclosed in Vogl as modified by Natarajan with providing the at least one sensor to include a ladder detection sensor for detecting a presence of a ladder within the hoistway. Doing so would ensure a ladder to be in a correctly stored position when “mounted close to a floor or a pit of the [hoistway]” “in order to ensure correct functioning and, in particular, safety of the elevator system” as taught in Michel (page 3 paragraph [0042]).
Conclusion
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 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 October 1, 2025