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 applicant’s amendment filed January 15, 2026. Claims 1 and 4-6 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered and are addressed below.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (US 4,463,833) in view of Rado et al. (US 4,520,904).
Claim 1: Ludwig et al. discloses an elevator control device comprising: a controller configured to responsive to a landing device (switches 1UL, 1DL) of an elevator, position a car within a door openable range (within about +- 0.25 inch of floor level) based on a releveling signal initiated if landing device is off cam (48) (column 4 lines 52-61). The car is further positioned based on an encoder signal generated from a pick-up (30) detecting rotation of a pulse wheel (column 3 lines 54-64). The releveling signal is transmitted from a releveling device of the elevator, configured to match a height of a floor surface of the car of the elevator with a height of a floor surface of a building (column 4 lines 52-58). The encoder signal is transmitted from an encoder (pick-up 30) that detects a rotation amount of a governor of the elevator (column 3 lines 54-64) relative to an operating point of a terminal stopping device of the elevator according to its height from the lowest floor of the elevator (column 5 lines 17-21). This reference fails to disclose the car to be positioned responsive to a landing device having failed.
However Rado et al. teaches an elevator control device comprising a controller configured to position (relevel) a car within a door openable range (level zone) in response to a detector of an elevator having failed (certain type of detector failure and certain type of fault detected) (column 3 lines 21-29). Said detector is described as a landing device (door-zone indicator) (column 1 lines 49-50).
Given the teachings of Rado 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 elevator control device disclosed in Ludwig et al. with providing the car to be positioned in response to a landing device having failed. Doing so would allow “that once a failure of the [landing device] is detected, it is permanently stored and the system automatically alters operation so that virtually normal operation can be achieved, eliminating the need to slow down the system or stop it entirely” as taught in Rado et al. (column 1 lines 49-54).
Claim 4: Ludwig et al. modified by Rado et al. discloses an elevator control device where the controller positions the car within the door openable range, as stated above. Afterward, the doors of the elevator open, as taught in Rado et al. (column 1 lines 38-40).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (US 4,463,833) modified by Rado et al. (US 4,520,904), as applied to claims above, further in view of Kuo et al. (US 7,506,725 B2).
Claims 5 and 6: Ludwig et al. modified by Rado et al. discloses an elevator control device where the car is positioned within a door openable range in response to a landing device having failed, as stated above. These references fail to disclose the controller to cause/operate an electronic announcer/buzzer of the elevator to output a warning sound responsive to positioning the car within the door openable range.
However Kuo et al. teaches an elevator control device, where a controller cause an electronic announcer/buzzer of the elevator to output a warning sound in response to an abnormal state being determined (column 5 lines 27-31).
Given the teachings of Kuo 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 elevator control device disclosed in Ludwig et al. as modified by Rado et al. with providing the controller to cause/operate an electronic announcer/buzzer of the elevator to output a warning sound responsive to positioning the car within the door openable range in response to a landing device having failed. Doing so would “warn the people that the elevator is in an abnormal state and needs to be repaired” as taught in Kuo et al. (column 5 lines 27-31).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 4 of the response that “Rado describes stopping the car immediately ‘if there is a certain type of detector failure’ or if there is a fault in the door-zone indicator – not positioning the car under such scenarios”. However Rado et al. teaches multiple scenarios which could occur based on multiple types of detector failures. In addition to a scenario in which the car is immediately stopped, one described scenario determines that there are failed detectors after reaching a deceleration zone (20 inches from the floor), and corrects the detectors while the car moves to a level zone (approximately 3 inches from a floor) during the final approach to a floor (column 3 lines 21-29). According to Rado et al. then, a failed detector would be determined after the car reaches 20 inches from a floor, and the car would be moved to about 3 inches from the floor after the determination is made that a detector has failed. Therefore Rado et al. properly teaches the car being allowed to move within a door openable range after a determination is made that a detector has failed. Lee modified by the teachings of Rado et al. then properly render obvious applicant’s limitations as required by the claim.
Applicant further states on page 5 that “such hypothetical modification would not have had a reasonable expectation of success with predictable results without (impermissibly) requiring substantial reconstruction and redesign of Ludwig, changing a principle of operation of Ludwig, and/or rendering Ludwig unsatisfactory for an intended purpose thereof”. However applicant provided no evidence from the prior art to support such arguments. Therefore the arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
Examiner contacted applicant’s representative, Patrick Miller via telephone communications on May 12, 2026 regarding the “outstanding issues” as per requested in the response, however no agreement was reached.
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 May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights