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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “near” in claim 10 line 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “generally” recited in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 11-15 are rejected as a result of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6, 10-12, 14-15 and 21 is/are rejected, as best understood in view of the above 112 rejection, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuzawa (JP5142099B2, and the Machine Translation thereof).
6. Regarding to claim 1, Matsuzawa discloses a counterweight monitor device [as can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa], comprising: a boundary marker (a first wire member 127, projection portions 35, 36, as can be seen from Figure 4-31 in Matsuzawa) configured to be situated along a boundary of a counterweight space at a selected location along a counterweight path (path of counterweight 4, as can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa) that extends along a first direction (a vertical direction, as can be seen from Figure 1 in Matsuzawa), and wherein the boundary marker(127, 35, 36) marks a boundary that extends along a second direction (a horizontal direction, as can be seen from Figure 4-31 in Matsuzawa) that is transverse to the first direction (vertical direction) [as can be seen from Figures 4-31 in Matsuzawa]; and a detector (derailing detection device 21, detection unit 32, as described on page 6 lines 24-28, page 9 lines 7-15 and page 19 lines 1-40 of the Machine Translation submitted by applicant) configured for detecting a boundary marker change [as described on page 6 lines 24-28, page 9 lines 7-15 and page 19 lines 1-40 of the Machine Translation submitted by applicant], the detector (21, 32) being configured to provide an output indicating a departure from the counterweight space based on a detected boundary marker change [as described on page 6 lines 24-28, page 9 lines 7-15 and page 19 lines 1-40 of the Machine Translation submitted by applicant].
7. Regarding to claim 2, Matsuzawa discloses the device of claim 1, comprising a mounting bracket (bracket 31, as can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa) that is configured to support at least the detector (21, 32) [as can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa].
8. Regarding to claim 3, Matsuzawa discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the mounting bracket (31) supports a portion of the boundary marker (first 127, 35, 36) [as can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa].
9. Regarding to claim 4, Matsuzawa discloses the device of claim 3, comprising a plurality of mounting brackets (a first and second 31, as can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa) and wherein the boundary marker (first 127, 35, 36) comprises an elongated structure [Figure 23]; one of the mounting brackets (first 31) supports one end of the boundary marker [Figure 23]; and another one of the mounting brackets (second 31) supports another end of the boundary marker (first 127, 35, 36) [as can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa].
10. Regarding to claim 5, Matsuzawa discloses the device of claim 4, comprising a second boundary marker (a second 127, 35, 36 as can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa) and wherein the boundary marker (first 127, 35, 36) is supported adjacent to one end of the mounting brackets (first and second 31), respectively; and the second boundary marker (second 127, 35, 36) is supported adjacent to another, opposite end of the mounting brackets (first and second 31), respectively [as can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa].
11. Regarding to claim 6, Matsuzawa discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the boundary marker (first 127, 35, 36) comprises a cable (wire-like member, including a wire and a rope, as described on page 19 lines 1-40 of the Machine Translation submitted by applicant) and the boundary marker (first 127, 35, 36) change comprises movement or deflection of the cable [as described on page 19 lines 1-40 of the Machine Translation submitted by applicant and can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa].
12. Regarding to claim 10, Matsuzawa discloses an elevator system comprising the counterweight monitor device [Figure 23 in Matsuzawa] of claim 1, a counterweight (counterweight 4, Figure 23) movable along counterweight guiderails (a first portion of guide rails 6a, 6b where the counterweight is movable along), and an elevator car (car 3) movable along car guiderails (a second portion of guide rail 6a, 6b where elevator car is movable along); and at least one mounting bracket (a first and second 31, as can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa) that is configured to support at least the detector (21, 32), wherein the at least one mounting bracket (first and second 31) is mounted near the counterweight guiderails (a portion of 6a, 6b) and independent of the counterweight guiderails (31) [as can be seen from Figures 1 and 23. Note that the mounting bracket and counterweight guiderails are interpreted as being independent parts, therefore the mounting bracket is considered to be “independent of the counterweight guiderails”].
13. Regarding to claim 11, Matsuzawa discloses elevator system of claim 10, wherein the counterweight (4) is situated within the counterweight space for movement along the counterweight path that extends in the first direction (vertical direction) along a length of the counterweight guiderails (portion of 6a, 6b), and wherein the counterweight guiderails (portion of 6a, 6b) are spaced apart from each other in the second direction(horizontal direction) [as can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa], the elevator car (3) is situated within an elevator space for movement along an elevator path that extends in the first direction (vertical direction) along a length of the car guiderails (a portion of 6a, 6b), and wherein the car guiderails (portion of 6a, 6b) are spaced part from each other in the second direction (horizontal direction) [Figure 1 and 23]; the boundary marker (127, 35, 36) extends along a path that is in the second direction (horizontal direction) and the counterweight monitor device [Figure 23] detects whether at least a portion of the counterweight enters the elevator space [as described on page 6 lines 24-28, page 9 lines 7-15 and page 19 lines 1-40 of the Machine Translation submitted by applicant].
.
14. Regarding to claim 12, Matsuzawa discloses elevator system of claim 11, wherein the counterweight (4) is adjacent the elevator car (3) along a passing portion of the counterweight path, and the selected location of the boundary marker (first 127, 35, 36) is at least above or below the passing portion [as described on page 19 lines 1-40 of the Machine Translation submitted by applicant and can be seen from Figures 1 and 23 in Matsuzawa].
15. Regarding to claim 14, Matsuzawa discloses elevator system of claim 10, comprising a plurality of mounting brackets (first and second 31, Figure 23) and wherein the boundary marker (first 127, 35, 36) comprises one of a cable or a rod [as described on page 19 lines 1-40 of the Machine Translation submitted by applicant and can be seen from Figures 1 and 23 in Matsuzawa]; one of the mounting brackets (first 31) supports one end of the boundary marker (first 127, 35, 36); and another one of the mounting brackets (second 31) supports another end of the boundary marker (first 127, 35, 36) [as can be seen from Figure 23 in Matsuzawa].
16. Regarding to claim 15, Matsuzawa discloses elevator system of claim 14, wherein the boundary marker change comprises movement or deflection of the cable or rod [as described on page 6 lines 24-28, page 9 lines 7-15 and page 19 lines 1-40 of the Machine Translation submitted by applicant].
17. Regarding to claim 21, Matsuzawa discloses elevator system of claim 1, wherein the second direction (horizontal direction) is generally perpendicular to the first direction (vertical direction) [as can be seen from Figure 1-31 in Matsuzawa].
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzawa (JP5142099B2, and the Machine Translation thereof).
20. Regarding to claim 7, Matsuzawa discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the boundary marker (first 127, 35, 36) being a wire/cable/rope. However, Matsuzawa does not explicitly disclose the boundary maker including a rod and the boundary marker change comprises movement or deflection of the cable. However, 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 boundary marker in Matsuzawa to include having a rod, as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
21. Regarding to claim 13, Matsuzawa discloses elevator system of claim 12 having a first counter weight monitor device, second boundary marker, and a detector. However, Matsuzawa does not explicitly disclose having a second counterweight monitor device including a second boundary marker that extends in a second direction and a second detector, wherein the selected location of the boundary marker is above the passing portion of the counterweight path, and second boundary marker is situated below the passing portion of the counterweight path. However, 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 boundary marker in Matsuzawa to include having a second counterweight including a second boundary maker extending in the second direction and a second detector, as recited, as a mere duplication of parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
22. Claims 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
23. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 10-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues the detector 21, 32 is not configured for detecting a change in the wire member 127. This is not found to be persuasive and moot in view of the new grounds or rejection. The wire member works together with the entire apparatus, including the counterweight and bracket, to detect position.
Conclusion
24. 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 NIRVANA DEONAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 5712723460. 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.
/NIRVANA DEONAUTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights