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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application Number: 16/992,843 filed on 8/13/20 has a total of 14 claims pending for examination; there are 2 independent claims and 12 dependent claims, of which only claims 6-8 and 10-14 are examined below.
Drawings
The drawing(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.81 to 1.85.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 6, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP3640183A1 to Hitachi (hereinafter Hitachi).
With regards to claim 6, Hitachi teaches a ladder apparatus [figs 1-8] comprising:
a pair of stiles between which rungs are supported [fig 1 element 16 shows a pit ladder having two stiles supporting plural rungs];
a lockout mechanism [fig 3B elements, and elements 33, 33a, fig 8 elements 34] disposed in an elevator pit [figs 1, 8 element 82] distinct from an elevator control panel [fig 8 element 92] disposed in a machine control room [fig 8 element 83] external to the elevator pit [figs 1, 8 element 82] and configured to compel a machine [fig 8 elements 85, 88, 89, 90, 91] into a non-operational state [not allowing element 85 and corresponding connected elements to operate - paragraphs 25, 36, 38, 41] from an operational state [allowing element 85 and corresponding connected elements to operate - paragraphs 18, 26, 30. 41], the lockout mechanism [fig 3B elements, and elements 33, 33a, fig 8 elements 34] configured to also compel the machine [fig 8 elements 85, 88, 89, 90, 91] into the non-operational state [not allowing element 85 and corresponding connected elements to operate] in response to a user engaging with the ladder apparatus such that the machine [fig 8 elements 85, 88, 89, 90, 91] is excluded from the operational state [paragraphs 18, 26, 30. 41]; and
a reset circuit [fig 3A elements 33, 33a, fig 8 elements 34, 92] configured to compel, in response to activation thereof, the machine [fig 8 elements 85, 88, 89, 90, 91] into the operational state [allowing element 85 and corresponding connected elements to operate] from the non-operational state [paragraphs 25, 36, 38, 41].
With regards to claim 12, Hitachi teaches the ladder apparatus of claim 6, further comprising a support frame [figs 1, 3A, 3B elements 12, 14, 20, 30] relatively translatable with respect to the stiles [fig 1 element 16 has stiles], the stiles being upwardly biased [element 19 – paragraphs 22] and mechanically coupled to a switch [figs 3A, 3B elements 33, 33a] that is engaged against the support frame [figs 1, 3A, 3B elements 12, 14, 20, 30] when the stiles have moved downwardly against the bias [element 19 – paragraphs 22] to meet a distance criterion, and an electrical protective device mechanism includes a weight-activated electrical protective device that compels the machine [fig 8 elements 85, 88, 89, 90, 91] into the non-operational state [not allowing element 85 and corresponding connected elements to operate] in response to relative motion between the stiles and the support frame meets the distance criterion [paragraphs 18, 26, 30. 41].
With regards to claim 14, Hitachi teaches the ladder apparatus of claim 6, wherein the machine is an elevator [fig 8 elements 85, 88, 89, 90, 91].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3640183A1 to Hitachi (hereinafter Hitachi) in view of US Patent No. 10,214,962 to Lin et al. (hereinafter Lin) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20200207574 to Hosemann et al. (hereinafter Hosemann).
With regards to claim 7, Hitachi teaches all of the above but is silent as to a cover that in a closed configuration prohibits access to the rungs and in an open configuration allows access to the rungs, and an electrical protective device mechanism including a cover electrical protective device that compels the machine into the non-operational state in response to the cover transitioning from the closed configuration to the open configuration, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
However, Lin teaches a ladder having a cover that in a closed configuration prohibits access to the rungs [Lin figs 1, 10] and in an open configuration allows access to the rungs [Lin figs 4, 10] for the benefit of preventing unauthorized access of an unsafe area to individuals [Lin abstract, column 1 lines 42-50].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hitachi and Lin to have the ladder apparatus have a cover that in a closed configuration prohibits access to the rungs [Lin figs 1, 10] and in an open configuration allows access to the rungs [Lin figs 4, 10] for the benefit of preventing unauthorized access of an unsafe area to individuals [Lin abstract, column 1 lines 42-50].
Furthermore, Hosemann teaches a cover electrical protective device [Hosemann elements 26, 28 paragraphs 28, 32, 56, 88] that compels (a) the machine [Hosemann element 10] into the non-operational state in response to the cover transitioning from the closed configuration to the open configuration [Hosemann paragraphs 9, 13, 56, 88], for the benefit of ensuring the safety of the elevator [Hosemann paragraphs 9, 13, 56].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hitachi, Lin and Hosemann to further have a cover electrical protective device [Hosemann elements 26, 28 paragraphs 28, 32, 56, 88] that compels (a) the machine [Hosemann element 10] into the non-operational state in response to the cover transitioning from the closed configuration to the open configuration [Hosemann paragraphs 9, 13, 56, 88], for the benefit of ensuring the safety of the elevator [Hosemann paragraphs 9, 13, 56].
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Hitachi, Lin and Hosemann teaches wherein the cover [Lin figs 1, 4 element 2 made up of elements 20, 25] comprises an inclined flap formed of an upper section thereof [Lin figs 1, 4 element 25] so as to fold over an uppermost one of the rungs when the cover is in the closed configuration [figs 1, 4 as shown] for the benefit of preventing unauthorized access of an unsafe area to individuals [Lin abstract, column 1 lines 42-50].
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3640183A1 to Hitachi (hereinafter Hitachi) in view of JP2011230920A to Uchida (hereinafter Uchida) – see attached translation .
With regards to claim 10, Hitachi teaches all of the above but is silent as to the ladder apparatus of claim 6, further comprising a pressure sensitive region disposed on at least one of the rungs, and an electrical protective device mechanism includes a rung electrical protective device that compels the machine into the non-operational state in response to pressure being applied to the pressure sensitive region that meets a pressure criterion.
However, Uchida teaches a pressure sensitive region [Uchida fig 10 element 31] disposed on at least one of the rungs [Uchida fig 10 element 34], and an electrical protective device mechanism includes a rung electrical protective device [Uchida fig 10 element 31 and signal sent to control panel] that compels (a) the machine [hoisting machine (elevator)] into (a) the non-operational state in response to pressure being applied to the pressure sensitive region that meets a pressure criterion [Uchida specification final 4 paragraphs directed to figure 10 just before “REFERENCE SIGNS LIST” section] for the benefit of preserving the safety of an elevator maintenance worker working in an elevator pit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hitachi and Uchida to have a pressure sensitive region [Uchida fig 10 element 31] disposed on at least one of the rungs [Uchida fig 10 element 34], and an electrical protective device mechanism includes a rung electrical protective device [Uchida fig 10 element 31 and signal sent to control panel] that compels the machine [hoisting machine (elevator)] into the non-operational state in response to pressure being applied to the pressure sensitive region that meets a pressure criterion [Uchida specification final 4 paragraphs directed to figure 10 just before “REFERENCE SIGNS LIST” section] for the benefit of preserving the safety of an elevator maintenance worker working in an elevator pit.
With regards to claim 11, the combination of Hitachi and Uchida is silent as to the ladder apparatus of claim 10, wherein the pressure criterion is a threshold of five (5) pounds of pressure
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pressure criterion be a threshold of five (5) pounds of pressure to make sure the pressure criterion used is sufficient to detect the force provided by a maintenance worker and not by something else that could provide a false reading and inadvertently stop the machinery.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3640183A1 to Hitachi (hereinafter Hitachi).
With regards to claim 13 Hitachi and Uchida is silent as to the ladder apparatus of claim 12, wherein the distance criterion is four (4) inches.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the distance criterion be four (4) inches to make sure the distance criterion used is sufficient to detect the force provided by a maintenance worker and not by something else that could provide a false reading and inadvertently stop the machinery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 6, that the Hitachi reference fails to teach the newly added limitations to the claim, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above, Hitachi’s lockout mechanism [fig 3B elements, and elements 33, 33a, fig 8 elements 34] is shown in figures 1, 3A and 3B to be disposed within element 82 which is an elevator pit. Figure 8 then shows elevator pit element 82 being external to a machine control room element 83. Figure 8 also shows a (physical) structural floor at the bottom of said machine control room element 83 that acts as the (physical) structural ceiling of the elevator shaft and elevator pit element 82 and thus the machine room and elevator pit being external to each other since they are separated by a physical barrier. Furthermore, the lockout mechanism [fig 3B elements, and elements 33, 33a, fig 8 elements 34] is engaged or disengaged based on an operator/user engaging the ladder apparatus. Otherwise the lockout mechanism wouldn’t operate at all if it wasn’t for the operator/user engaging said ladder apparatus. The weight of the operator/user is what makes the lockout mechanism [fig 3B elements, and elements 33, 33a, fig 8 elements 34] operate between modes. See Hitachi paragraphs 18, 25-26, 30, 36, 38, 41.
Due to the above, claims 6-7 and 10-14 stand rejected.
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 DAVID E MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4152. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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, Daniel P Cahn can be reached on (571)270-5616. 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.
DEM
/DAVID E MARTINEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights