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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on January 28, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 14-18 and 20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph has been withdrawn.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, 8-10, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenais (US 5,877,462) in view of Khalil et al. (US 2017/0355558 A1).
Claims 1 and 16: Chenais discloses a ropeless elevator system and method of operating an elevator car of a ropeless elevator system shown in Fig. 1 to comprise a car mover (own independent drive 2) operationally connected to an elevator car (C1 … CN), and configured to move the elevator car along a hoistway lane (shaft 1) (column 2 lines 9-15). Each elevator car is an automative elevator car and includes an independent car mover for driving the respective car independently (column 2 lines 9-19). Therefore the car mover operates without being controlled by a central controller. A controller (elevator control 20) is shown in Fig. 8 to be onboard the elevator car, and controls an operation of the car including stopping of the car via the car mover (column 5 lines 20-22, 35-38). The car mover includes a car separation assurance system (safety module 10) shown in Fig. 8 to comprise receiver unit (22), where receiver unit—and therefore car separation assurance system—is operationally coupled to the controller and configured to control the car mover to initiate a braking phase (column 5 lines 20-22, 29-38) to avoid a collision between the elevator car and an adjacent car moving in the hoistway lane (column 1 lines 34-37) driven by a respective adjacent car mover (column 2 lines 14-15). The car separation assurance system includes a sensor (light barriers) configured to provide sensor data representing positional information of the elevator car and for sensing elevator car position via interaction with measuring strips arranged in the hoistway lanes (column 5 line 60 through column 6 line 3).
The car separation assurance system estimates an operational state of the elevator car by processing the sensor data and travel data of an adjacent car (other cars) (column 5 lines 40-44), where travel data includes velocity data representing velocity of the car mover within the hoistway lane, adjacent car velocity, and a range (distance) to the adjacent car (column 5 line 57 through column 6 line 3). The car separation assurance system controls the car mover to avoid a collision between the elevator car and the adjacent car in the hoistway lane in response to estimating (predicting) the operation state of the elevator car (column 5 lines 5-11), which includes an estimated braking distance and a likelihood of a collision occurrence with the adjacent car in the hoistway lane (column 2 lines 33-38). The car separation assurance system is configured to transmit a stop command signal to the adjacent car in the hoistway lane via a transmission path (communications system 11) (column 5 lines 33-44) upon determining a likelihood of a collision is above a threshold (spacing of d2-d1) (column 2 lines 33-38). The car mover monitors travel of each elevator car via processing the sensor data (column 2 line 67 through column 3 line 4), including adjacent elevator cars in a same hoistway lane (column 1 lines 49-53), where the sensor data indicates a forward and backward range to the adjacent elevator cars via infrared sensors (column 5 lines 56-60). This reference fails to disclose the controller to be onboard the car mover and the operational state of the elevator car to be estimated via a State Observe Filter such that the processed sensor data is applied to the State Observe Filter. This reference further fails to disclose the car mover to monitor travel of only adjacent elevator car in a same hoistway lane.
However Khalil et al. teaches an elevator system and method of operating an elevator system, where an operational state (relationship to an obstruction) of an elevator car (12) is estimated by processing sensor data from sensors (62) and velocity data of the elevator car within a hoistway lane (page 3 paragraph [0047]). The operational state is estimated via a State Observer Filter (Kalman Filter) (page 3 paragraph [0042]).
Given the teachings of Khalil 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 system and method disclosed in Chenais with providing the operational state of the elevator car to be estimated via a State Observe Filter. The processed sensor data then would be applied to the State Observe Filter. 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 controller to be onboard the car mover, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. 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 car mover to monitor travel of only adjacent elevator car in a same hoistway lane instead of each elevator car, since it has been held to be obvious when all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. Doing so would provide a “safety feature should the service car and/or elevator car be moved toward an obstruction, a counterweight, a leading car, or any other object within the [hoistway], transfer area, or other machinery space” as taught in Khalil et al. (page 3 paragraph [0045]), while providing direct communications between the controller and car mover, thereby reducing communication delays therebetween, in addition to reducing an amount of computing processes and resources required to avoid a collision due to a “faulty function occur[ing] at the monitored car” as taught in Chenais (column 1 lines 49-53).
Claims 2 and 18: Chenais modified by Khalil et al. discloses a system and method where the controller controls stopping of the car, as stated above. The controller is configured to at least in part process travel data in order to control the stopping (column 5 lines 40-44), where the travel data is provided by sensor data (column 5 line 60-67).
Claim 4: Chenais modified by Khalil et al. discloses a system where the car separation assurance system controls the car mover to avoid a collision in response to estimating the operational state of the elevator car, as stated above. The car separation assurance system is shown in Khalil et al. to sense any horizontal or vertical hoistway structure that may collide with the top of the elevator car (page 3 paragraph [0043]). Such structure includes a hoistway terminus, as is recognized in the art. The car separation assurance system then is configured to control the car mover to avoid a collision between the elevator car and a hoistway terminus in response to estimating the operational state of the elevator car.
Claim 6: Chenais modified by Khalil et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the State Observe Filter is shown in Khalil et al. to include a Recursive Kalman Filter Estimator (page 3 paragraph [0042]).
Claim 8: Chenais modified by Khalil et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the sensor is shown in Khalil et al. to include LiDAR (page 2 paragraph [0038]) to sense at least one forward range and backward range (page 1 paragraph [0015]).
Claim 9: Chenais modified by Khalil et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the sensor is shown in Khalil et al. to sense one or more of a forward range and backward range (page 1 paragraph [0015]) via laser distancing (laser radar) (page 2 paragraph [0038]).
Claim 10: Chenais modified by Khalil et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the ropeless elevator system is shown in Fig. 1 of Chenais to be a multi-car ropeless system.
Claims 14 and 20: Chenais modified by Khalil et al. discloses a system and method as stated above, where the car separation assurance system is disclosed in Chenais to be configured to communicate with the adjacent car mover (column 3 lines 13-17). The car separation assurance system is shown in Khalil et al. to communicate over a wireless connection via a cloud service (page 2 paragraph [0035]).
Claim 17: Chenais modified by Khalil et al. discloses a method as stated above, where a first landing is traveled to at a first speed, and upon detecting a potential collision, the car separation assurance system controls the car mover to stop at a then current location by activating a mechanical device to grip guide rails, as shown in Khalil et al. (page 3 paragraph [0046]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenais (US 5,877,462modified by Khalil et al. (US 2017/0355558 A1) as applied to claims above, further in view of Thum et al. (US 2020/0102184 A1).
Claim 15: Chenais modified by Khalil et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose the car separation assurance system to be configured to transmit periodic test signals to the adjacent car mover and monitor for periodic test signals transmitted from the adjacent car mover to track transmission reliability.
However Thum et al. teaches an elevator system, where a car separation assurance system transmits periodic test signals to a controller (page 4 paragraph [0041]), and signals transmitted are monitored to track transmission reliability via sending a confirmation signal if data was received (page 6 paragraph [0061]).
Given the teachings of Thum 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 system and method disclosed in Chenais as modified by Khalil et al. with providing the car separation assurance system to be configured to transmit periodic test signals to the adjacent car mover and monitor for periodic test signals transmitted from the adjacent car mover to track transmission reliability. Doing so would “make the multi-car elevator system advantageously more robust against singular communication faults, with which single-occurrence problems occur when providing data of the elevator car” as taught in Thum et al. (page 2 paragraph [0016]).
Conclusion
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 April 1, 2026