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 applicants’ amendment filed February 13, 2026. Claims 1-11, 13-15 and 16-18 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims have been considered and are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 and 18 include the limitation “the second sensor unit (is mounted) on the motor”, however the originally filed disclosure does not properly describe the second sensor unit being on the motor. Applicants’ specification only describes the “sensor unit (12) to be “arranged in connection with a/the motor (20)”. See page 3 line 18, and page 7 lines 5-6. An element arranged to be in connection with another element could include the elements being in electrical connection via wires or wireless communications, or being mechanically connected to each other directly or indirectly through intermediate elements therebetween. Further, applicants’ FIGS. 2A and 2B show the sensor unit 12 to be adjacent motor 20:24, and do not explicitly require the sensor unit to be (mounted) on the motor, i.e., mechanically connected. Therefore the claim limitation limiting the sensor unit to be (mounted) on the motor is not properly described in applicant’s specification and is considered new matter.
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 1-3, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachino (US 5,162,623) in view of Uchida et al. (US 2018/0179021 A1), further in view of Okuda (US 11,634,304 B2).
Claim 1: Tachino discloses a safety system of an elevator shown in FIG. 1 to comprise: a safety controller (monitor panel 30), a sensor unit (car position counter 12) configured to generate a first sensor signal indicating a travelling parameter (car position data) of an elevator car based on generated pulses from pulse generator (11) (column 3 lines 48-51) and to provide the first sensor signal to an elevator drive unit (elevator control unit 13) of the elevator. The first sensor signal has a first format as is recognized in the art, such that the elevator drive unit receives the first sensor signal having the first format. A signal converter (signal conversion circuit 15) is shown to be bidirectionally connected to the elevator drive unit and connected to the sensor unit via monitor panel data processing unit (14), to receive the first sensor signal from the sensor unit, and to convert the first sensor signal into a second signal having a second format compatible with signal conversion circuit (33) of the safety controller and to provide the second signal having the second format to the safety controller via power line (40), wherein the safety controller is configured to receive the second signal having the second format via signal conversion circuit (33) (column 3 lines 48-62). Due to the signal being converted, the second format would be different than the first format, as is recognized in the art. This reference fails to discloses the signal converter to be in the elevator drive unit such that the signal converter transmits the first sensor signal to the elevator drive unit, the safety controller to read the second signal having the second format, and determine, based on the second signal having the second format read by the safety controller, existence of an emergency condition.
However Uchida et al. teaches a safety system of an elevator, where a safety controller (safety control device 6) determines existence of an emergency condition (car is in an abnormal state) based on a signal indicating a travelling parameter (speed) (page 2 paragraph [0037]).
Given the teachings of Uchida 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 safety system disclosed in Tachino with providing the safety controller to determine, based on receiving the second signal having the second format, existence of an emergency condition. Doing so would allow the car to be brought “to a stop at the nearest floor, or to an emergency stop” based on detection of excessive speed of the car, as taught in Uchida et al. (page 2 paragraph [0037]). 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 signal converter to be in the elevator drive unit, since it has been held that making various elements into an integral structure involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965,968,144 USPQ 347,347 (CCPA 1965). The signal converter then would transmit the first sensor signal to the elevator drive unit. Doing so would allow removal of the external bidirectional communications link between the monitor panel data processing unit and signal converter shown in FIG. 1 of Tachino, thereby simplifying the overall design of the system while still allowing communications therebetween. These references fail to disclose the safety controller to read the second signal having the second format, such that the determination is based on the second signal having the second format read by the safety controller.
However Okuda teaches a system of an elevator, where a signal converter (communication conversion board 410) converts a first signal from an old serial communication system into a second signal for a new serial communication system (column 7 lines 61-67). The second signal then has a second format, different than a first format of the first signal, as is recognized in the art. The second signal is compatible with a controller (new elevator control board 110A) (column 8 lines 14-17), allowing the controller to read the second signal having the second format.
Given the teachings of Okuda, 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 safety system disclosed in Tachino as modified by Uchida et al. with providing the second signal having the second format to be compatible with the safety controller in order for the safety controller to read the second signal having the second format. The determination then would be based on the second signal having the second format read by the safety controller. Doing so would allow “replacing old devices with new devices” as organized groups as taught in Okuda (column 5 lines 7-8) in order to “enable transmission and reception of a larger capacity of data than that through an old communication system” (column 7 lines 32-35).
Claim 2: Tachino modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda discloses a safety system as stated above, where the safety controller is shown in Uchida et al. to compare the travelling parameter of the second signal with an error ratio (page 7 paragraph [0133]) corresponding to an emergency stopping criteria (error ration exceeds a second threshold) for determining the emergency condition (page 12 Claim 13).
Claim 3: Tachino modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda discloses a safety system as stated above, where the safety controller is shown in Uchida et al. to cause an emergency stop based on determination of the emergency condition (page 2 paragraph [0037]).
Claim 11: Tachino modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda discloses a safety system as stated above, where the second signal with the second format is shown in Okuda to be in a data frame format comprising a Controller Area Network bus frame (column 7 lines 30-33).
Claim 13: Tachino modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda discloses a safety system as stated above, where Uchida et al. shows an elevator car (5) arranged to be moved in an elevator shaft by a motor (hoisting machine 8) of the elevator, and an elevator drive unit (control device 7) arranged to operate the motor (page 2 paragraph [0036]), as is recognized in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachino (US 5,162,623) modified by Uchida et al. (US 2018/0179021 A1) and Okuda (US 11,634,304 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Matsuoka (US 2009/0014256 A1).
Claim 4: Tachino modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda discloses a safety system as stated above, but fails to disclose the safety controller to be an emergency terminal speed limit controller.
However Matsuoka teaches a safety system of an elevator, where a safety controller is described as an emergency terminal speed limit controller device (emergency terminal speed-limit device 24) (page 2 paragraph [0024]).
Given the teachings of Matsuoka, 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 safety system disclosed in Tachino as modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda with providing the safety controller to be an emergency terminal speed limit controller. Doing so would “more reliably prevent a car from colliding with a buffer at a speed higher than a permissible collision speed” as taught in Matsuoka (page 1 paragraph [0005]).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachino (US 5,162,623) modified by Uchida et al. (US 2018/0179021 A1) and Okuda (US 11,634,304 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Christian et al. (US 6,854,010 B1).
Claim 5: Tachino modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda discloses a safety system as stated above, but fails to disclose an encoder of the sensor unit to comprise a Synchronous Serial Interface encoder.
However Uchida et al. teaches a safety system of an elevator, where a communication controller includes various interfaces (page 2 paragraph [0039]) which contain an encoder (page 3 paragraph [0047]).
Given the teachings of Uchida 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 safety system disclosed in Tachino with providing the sensor unit to contain an encoder. Doing so would allow various pieces of elevator equipment to be connected to a communication controller, as taught in Uchida et al. (page 2 paragraph [0039]) via a safety bus, thereby reducing the quantity of wires that are employed (page 1 paragraph [0003]). These references fail to disclose the encoder to comprise a Synchronous Serial Interface encoder.
However Christian et al. teaches a safety system for use in an elevator (column 3 lines 50-55), where interfaces of the system include Synchronous Serial Interfaces (column 5 lines 38-42).
Given the teachings of Christian 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 safety system disclosed in Tachino as modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda with providing the encoder to be a Synchronous Serial Interface encoder. Doing so would provide a “high speed” interface “to connect to the Internet service provider or WAN on a [building’s] network” as taught in Christian et al. (column 5 lines 38-42).
Claim 8: Tachino modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda discloses a safety system as stated above, but fails to disclose the first sensor signal to be in Synchronous Serial Interface signal format.
However Christian et al. teaches a safety system for use in an elevator (column 3 lines 50-55), where interfaces of the system include Synchronous Serial Interfaces (column 5 lines 38-42).
Given the teachings of Christian 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 safety system disclosed in Tachino as modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda with providing the sensor unit to be a Synchronous Serial Interface. The first sensor signal then would be in Synchronous Serial Interface signal format. Doing so would provide a “high speed” interface “to connect to the Internet service provider or WAN on a [building’s] network” as taught in Christian et al. (column 5 lines 38-42).
Claims 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachino (US 5,162,623) modified by Uchida et al. (US 2018/0179021 A1) and Okuda (US 11,634,304 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Michel et al. (US 11,548,759 B2).
Claim 6: Tachino modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda discloses a safety system as stated above, but fails to disclose the sensor unit to comprise a magnetic field sensor.
However Michel et al. teaches a safety system, where a sensor unit detects a position marker and generates a sensor signal indicative of a traveling parameter (position) of an elevator car (column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 2). Individual code marks of the position marker are formed by magnetic poles (column 3 lines 48-53). Therefore the sensor unit comprises a magnetic field sensor for detecting the individual codes of the position marker.
Given the teachings of Michel 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 safety system disclosed in Tachino as modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda with providing the sensor unit to comprise a magnetic field sensor. Doing so would provide a “particularly simply and thus cost-effectively implemented [system] and at the same time enable a sufficient reliable determination of the car position” as taught in Michel et al. (column 1 line 65 through column 2 line 3).
Claim 7: Tachino modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda discloses a safety system as stated above, but fails to disclose the sensor unit to comprise an inductive proximity sensor.
However Michel et al. teaches a safety system, where a sensor unit detects a position marker and generates a sensor signal indicative of a traveling parameter (position) of an elevator car (column 3 line 64 through column 4 line 2). Individual code marks of the position marker are formed by magnetic poles (column 3 lines 48-53). Therefore the sensor unit comprises a sensor considered as an inductive proximity sensor *for detecting the individual codes of the position marker.
Given the teachings of Michel 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 safety system disclosed in Tachino as modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda with providing the sensor unit to comprise an inductive proximity sensor. Doing so would provide a “particularly simply and thus cost-effectively implemented [system] and at the same time enable a sufficient reliable determination of the car position” as taught in Michel et al. (column 1 line 65 through column 2 line 3).
Claim 9: Tachino modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda discloses a safety system as stated above, but fails to disclose the first sensor signal to be an analog signal.
However Michel et al. teaches a safety system, where a sensor unit includes Hall sensors, and outputs a first sensor signal as an analog signal (column 6 lines 18-20).
Given the teachings of Michel 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 safety system disclosed in Tachino as modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda with providing the sensor unit to include Hall sensors to output the first sensor signal as an analog signal. Doing so would provide a “particularly simply and thus cost-effectively implemented [system] and at the same time enable a sufficient reliable determination of the car position” as taught in Michel et al. (column 1 line 65 through column 2 line 3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachino (US 5,162,623) modified by Uchida et al. (US 2018/0179021 A1) and Okuda (US 11,634,304 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Takahama et al. (US 11,506,524 B2).
Claim 10: Tachino modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda discloses a safety system as stated above, but fails to disclose the second signal to comprise quadrature signals.
However Takahama et al. teaches a safety system, where a sensory unit is shown in FIG. 1 to include a first encoder (16a) and a second encoder (16b), which generate a first encoder signal and a second encoder signal, respectively, that have a phase difference of ¼ period (column 4 lines 11-19).
Given the teachings of Takahama 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 safety system disclosed in Tachino as modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda with providing the sensor unit to include first and second encoder, such that the second signal is representative of first and second encoder signals having a phase difference of ¼ period. The second signal then comprises quadrature signals. Doing so would allow detection of “a difference (shift) between the first encoder rotation amount and the second rotation detection signal, and, in a case where this difference is in an allowable range that includes a predetermined threshold, determines that the encoders are normal, and in a case where the difference exceeds the predetermined threshold, determines that an abnormality has occurred in one or both of the encoders” as taught in Takahama et al. (column 5 lines 26-33).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachino (US 5,162,623) modified by Uchida et al. (US 2018/0179021 A1) and Okuda (US 11,634,304 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Kattainen et al. (US 2019/0010024 A1).
Claim 18: Tachino modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda discloses a safety system as stated above, where the elevator is shown in Okuda to comprise a motor configured to drive the elevator car (column 4 lines 13-14). These references fail to disclose the sensor unit to be mounted on the motor.
However Kattainen et al. teaches a system of an elevator, where a sensor unit (108) is mounted on a motor (pages 2-3 paragraph [0031]).
Given the teachings of Kattainen 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 safety system disclosed in Tachino as modified by Uchida et al. and Okuda with providing the sensor unit to be mounted on the motor. Doing so would allow for a precise measurement of the intended travel parameter according to the source of travel, which can be compared with actual travel of the elevator car.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16 are allowed.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14: Although the prior art (US 5,162,623) teaches a method for a safety system of an elevator, where a second sensor unit (car position counter 12)is configured to generate a first sensor signal (car position data) having a first format based on generated pulses from pulse generator (11) (column 3 lines 48-51) and to provide the first sensor signal to an elevator drive unit (elevator control unit 13), used to control a motor of the elevator via elevator control signals (column 2 lines 46-47), therefore the sensor unit is arranged in connection with a motor of the elevator, the first sensor signal has a first format, such that the elevator drive unit receives the first sensor signal having the first format, a signal converter (signal conversion circuit 15) is obtained, connected to the elevator drive unit, and configured to convert the first sensor signal having the first format into a second signal having a second format different from the first format compatible with signal conversion circuit (33) of safety controller (monitor panel 30) (column 3 lines 48-62), and additional prior art (US 2018/0179021 A1) teaches a safety controller (safety control device 6) to determine existence of an emergency condition (car is in an abnormal state) based on a signal indicating a travelling parameter (speed) (page 2 paragraph [0037]), the prior art does not teach nor suggest the method to upgrade the safety system by replacing a first sensor unit with the second sensor unit, the first sensor unit being arranged in connection with a motor of the elevator and configured to generated a second signal having a second format different from the first format, indicating a travelling parameter of the elevator car and to provide the second signal to the elevator drive unit, where the safety controller is configured to receive the second signal and determine, based on the second signal, existence of an emergency condition, and the second sensor unit being connected to the motor, and the second signal having the second format converted by the signal converter to be provided to the safety controller. The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate nor make obvious applicant's claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 17 depend from claim 14 and therefore inherit all allowed claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state on page 8 of the response that “removing bidirectional communication between elevator control unit 13 and signal conversion circuit 15 as suggested by the Examiner would adversely impact the intended functionality of the monitor/control system of Tachino”. However integrating the signal converter (15) of Tachino with the elevator control unit (13) would allow the external communication link between the signal conversion circuit (15) and monitor panel data processing unit (14) shown in FIG. 1 to be removed. Communications between the elevator control unit and signal conversion circuit could still be performed since the signal conversion circuit would be integrated with the elevator control unit. Therefore by providing the signal conversion circuit integrally with the elevator control, a simpler design can be achieved while preserving all functionality of Tachino’s elevator system. Such a modification then would properly render obvious applicants’ limitation as required by the claim.
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 May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights