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 November 18, 2025. Claims 2 and 12 have been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are pending with claims 7-10 and 17-20 being previously withdrawn. An action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 include the limitation “supervisory controller includes a position of the of the plurality of cars in a hoistway”. This limitation should be changed to state “supervisory controller includes a position of a plurality of cars in a hoistway”.
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, 3-6, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US 7,896,137 B2) in view of Takeda (US 8,794,388 B2) further in view of Araki (US 6,827,182 B2).
Claims 1 and 11: Ishikawa discloses a car mover and a method of operating a car mover configured to move an elevator car (3) in lane of a hoistway (1), comprising a power supply (second electric storage apparatus 22) configured to power one or more motors (15) (column 3 lines 42-47) to drive a respective one or more wheels (column 3 lines 10-18). A car mover controller (operation control apparatus 19) is operationally connected to the power supply to control movement of the elevator car (column 3 lines 35-37) and is onboard the elevator car (column 3 lines 20-21), as shown in FIG. 1. The car mover controller is configured to execute health monitor protocols to thereby: monitor a state of charge (SOC) (electric power amount stored) of the power supply (column 4 lines 35-34). The car mover controller controls the car mover in response to power in the power supply (column 7 lines 11-21). Charging stations (hoistway-side connecting units 27) are located at each elevator hall (2) for charging the elevator car power supply when the elevator car is stopped at the hall (column 4 lines 1-14), as shown in FIG. 1. This reference fails to disclose a supervisory controller to be operationally connected to the car mover controller, the supervisory controller to be a hub removed from the elevator car, to communicate with a plurality of car movers including the car mover over a network, and the supervisory controller to be configured to also execute the health monitor protocols, wherein data considered by the supervisory controller includes a position of the of the plurality of cars in a hoistway, requested floors to serve, and a location of charging stations relative the plurality of cars. This reference further fails to disclose the car mover to be controlled in response to determining that the power supply is in a low SOC, and when executing the health monitor protocols, the car mover controller to be configured to execute a vehicle control module, to thereby execute a plurality of levels of vehicle control in response to determining that the power supply is in a low SOC, including a first level of vehicle control, including adjusting one or more motion control parameters of the car mover and when executing the health monitor protocols, the supervisory controller to be configured to determine that the power supply is in a low SOC and to direct the car mover to a charging station.
However Takeda teaches a device and method, where a supervisory controller (group control apparatus 3) is shown in FIG. 1 to be operationally connected to an individual car controller (single control device 2A), as a hub removed from an elevator car (1A), to communicate with a plurality of single control devices (2A, 2B) including the single control device over a network (column 3 lines 10-14). The supervisory controller is shown to include power consumption calculation unit (8) to execute health monitor protocols for each car (column 3 lines 24-28, 51-54). Data considered by the supervisory controller includes a position of a plurality of cars in a hoistway and requested floors to serve (column 3 lines 16-23).
Given the teachings of Takeda, 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 car mover and method disclosed in Ishikawa with providing a supervisory controller to be operationally connected to the car mover controller, the supervisory controller to be a hub removed from the elevator car, to communicate with a plurality of car movers including the car mover over a network, the supervisory controller to be configured to also execute the health monitor protocols, wherein data considered by the supervisory controller includes a position of the of the plurality of cars in a hoistway and requested floors to serve, and a location of the floors, and therefore charging stations relative the plurality of cars. Doing so would provide “an elevator group control apparatus capable of performing distributed waiting efficiently while suppressing wasteful power consumption as much as possible” as taught in Takeda (column 1 lines 46-49). These references fail to disclose the car mover to be controlled in response to determining that the power supply is in a low SOC, and when executing the health monitor protocols, the car mover controller to be configured to execute a vehicle control module, to thereby execute a plurality of levels of vehicle control in response to determining that the power supply is in a low SOC, including a first level of vehicle control, including adjusting one or more motion control parameters of the car mover and when executing the health monitor protocols, the supervisory controller to be configured to determine that the power supply is in a low SOC and to direct the car mover to a charging station.
However Araki teaches a device and method, where a health monitor protocol is executed which monitors a state of charge (SOC) of a power supply and controls an elevator car in response to determining that the power supply is in a low SOC (column 11 lines 53-57). When executing the health monitor protocols, a vehicle control module is executed to thereby execute a plurality of levels of vehicle control in response to determining that the power supply is in a low SOC, including: a first level of vehicle control, including adjusting one or more motion control parameters to a low speed of the car mover, as shown in Araki (column 11 lines 53-57), and directs the car to a nearest floor in response to the detected SOC (column 7 lines 16-24).
Given the teachings of Araki, 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 car mover and method disclosed in Ishikawa as modified by Takeda with providing the car mover to be controlled in response to determining that the power supply is in a low SOC, and when executing the health monitor protocols, the car mover controller to be configured to execute a vehicle control module, to thereby execute a plurality of levels of vehicle control in response to determining that the power supply is in a low SOC, including a first level of vehicle control, including adjusting one or more motion control parameters of the car mover and when executing the health monitor protocols, the supervisory controller to be configured to determine that the power supply is in a low SOC and to direct the car mover to a nearest floor, in which a respective charging station is located. Doing so would “prevent the passengers from being shut in the elevator due to the insufficient quantity of charged power in the power [source]” as taught in Araki (column 11 lines 57-59).
Claim 3: Ishikawa modified by Takeda and Araki discloses a car mover where the one or more motion control parameters of the car mover includes a velocity (speed) of the car mover, as stated above.
Claims 4 and 14: Ishikawa modified by Takeda and Araki discloses a car mover and method as stated above, where a second level of vehicle control is executed including directing the car mover to park at a nearest floor, as shown in Araki (column 11 lines 53-57).
Claims 5 and 15: Ishikawa modified by Takeda and Araki discloses a car mover and method as stated above, wherein when executing the vehicle control module, the car mover controller is configured to monitor the SOC of the power supply and a velocity (speed) of the car mover in order to slow the car to a speed upper limit value, as shown in Araki (column 10 lines 58-67).
Claims 6 and 16: Ishikawa modified by Takeda and Araki discloses a car mover and method as stated above, where the car mover controller is configured to execute the vehicle control module in an emergency mode corresponding to the SOC being determined to be within a second stored power range, in which the car mover is controlled to move to a nearest floor, as shown in Araki (column 11 lines 53-57). While at the nearest floor, power is supplied to the power supply, as shown in Ishikawa (column 4 lines 7-14). Therefore the emergency mode corresponds to reactive power management of the power supply in response to the SOC being within a second stored power range. The car mover controller is further disclosed in Ishikawa to be configured to execute the vehicle control module in a normal mode corresponding to all other determined SOC, including when the SOC of power supply is below a first stored power range greater than the second stored power range, where the first mode corresponds to proactive power management of the power supply in which the one or more motors act as generators, and electric power from the one or more motors are converted and stored in the power supply (column 6 lines 44-53).
Claim 13: Ishikawa modified by Takeda and Araki discloses a method where the one or more motion control parameters of the car mover includes a velocity (speed) of the car mover, as stated above. The one or more motion control parameters of the car mover further includes deceleration in order to slow the car to a speed upper limit value, as shown in Araki (column 10 lines 58-67). Deceleration is a negative acceleration, as is recognized in the art. Therefore the one or more motion control parameters of the car mover further includes acceleration. Adjustment to the car mover’s velocity and acceleration would affect vibrations and impulses experienced by the car mover, as is known the art. Therefore the one or more motion control parameters of the car mover further includes vibrations and impulses experienced by the car mover.
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 February 21, 2026