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 4, 2025. Claims 10-18 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph has been withdrawn.
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 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarelainen et al. (US 11,975,944 B2) in view of Nakari (US 2017/0297861 A1).
Claim 10: Saarelainen et al. discloses a method for controlling a brake of an elevator system, wherein the brake has an armature (52) that is pulled by an electromagnet to release the brake from a braking position against a spring force into a release position (column 11 lines 8-14). The method comprising the steps of: applying (feeding) an initial electrical voltage to the electromagnet and measuring a current intensity supplied to the electromagnet in response to the initial electrical voltage (column 6 lines 46-47, 54-58); and in response to a detection of a typical time behavior (500 ms) before a detected change in current, a brake malfunction is indicated (column 3 line 62 through column 4 line 18). The brake is further used in an emergency braking situation in response to a fault occurring (column 1 lines 24-27). The typical time behavior (brake pick time) characteristically occurs when the armature moves from the braking position into the release position after applying the initial electrical voltage to the electromagnet, gradually increasing coil current intensity (column 6 lines 10-16). This reference fails to disclose the initial electrical voltage applied to the electromagnet to be reduced to a holding voltage in response to the detection of the typical time behavior.
However Nakari teaches a method for controlling a brake of an elevator system, where an initial electrical voltage (higher voltage signal) is applied to lift the brake and is reduced to a holding voltage (page 1 paragraphs [0009], [0011]). Typical movement of an elevator car requires that the brake to be initially released and then held open during its movement to another floor, as is recognized in the art. The brake is further applied with a rapid cancellation of energizing the electromagnet in response to an emergency situation (page 2 paragraph [0025]).
Given the teachings of Nakari, 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 method disclosed in Saarelainen et al. with providing the initial electrical voltage applied to the electromagnet to be reduced to a holding voltage in response to the indicated brake malfunction, i.e. detection of the typical time behavior before a detected change in current. Doing so would allow typical operation of a brake during typical movement of the elevator car, while “[stopping] the elevator car if an operational fault occurs” as taught in Saarelainen et al. (column 1 lines 24-27) with a “rapid cancellation of the energizing of the [electromagnet]” as taught in Nakari (page 2 paragraph [0025]) without needing “a separate reduced voltage circuit or a separate operation switch” (page 1 paragraph [0011]).
Claim 11: Saarelainen et al. modified by Nakari discloses a method as stated above, where a reduction in the measured current intensity is detected as the typical time behavior when the initial voltage is applied as shown in Nakari (page 3 paragraph [0034]).
Claim 12: Saarelainen et al. modified by Nakari discloses a method as stated above, where an increase in the measured current intensity is detected as the typical time behavior after a decrease in the measured current intensity as shown in Nakari (page 3 paragraph [0034]).
Claim 13: Saarelainen et al. modified by Nakari discloses a method as stated above, where a typical course of a current intensity resulting from the initial voltage applied to the electromagnet is disclosed in Saarelainen et al. to be determined in advance by simulation (column 6 lines 46-47, 54-58). The typical time behavior is detected as a match between the measured current intensity and the determined typical time course of the current intensity (column 7 lines 6-21).
Claim 14: Saarelainen et al. modified by Nakari discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose the initial electric voltage to be greater than or equal to an electrical voltage applied to the electromagnet required to hold the armature in the release position.
However Nakari teaches a method for controlling a brake of an elevator system, where an initial electrical voltage (higher voltage signal) is applied to lift the brake and is reduced to a holding voltage (page 1 paragraph [0011]).
Given the teachings of Nakari, 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 method disclosed in Saarelainen et al. with providing the initial electric voltage to be greater than or equal to an electrical voltage applied to the electromagnet required to hold the armature in the release position. Doing so would allow “output [of] at least two different output signals depending on the operational state of the brake” without needing “a separate reduced voltage circuit or a separate operation switch” as taught in Nakari (page 1 paragraph [0011]).
Claim 15: Saarelainen et al. modified by Nakari discloses a method where the initial electrical voltage is reduced to a holding voltage, as stated above. These references fail to disclose the holding voltage to be at least 10% lower than the initial electrical voltage.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the holding voltage to be at least 10% lower than the initial electrical voltage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would “allow for faster closing operation of the brake, as the counter-voltage of the electromagnetic operation is sufficient for diminishing the magnetic energy of the braking system low enough to let the compression spring release the brake to apply the braking force onto the surface whereon braking force is to be applied” as taught in Saarelainen et al. (column 9 lines 59-67).
Claim 16: Saarelainen et al. modified by Nakari discloses a method as stated above, where a brake release confirmation signal (alarm) is disclosed in Saarelainen et al. to be outputted in response to the detection of the typical time behavior of the measured current intensity (column 3 line 62 through column 4 line 2).
Claim 17: Saarelainen et al. modified by Nakari discloses a method where a brake of an elevator system has an armature that is pulled by an electromagnet to release the brake from a braking position against a spring force into a release position as stated above, where a brake controller for controlling, as stated above. A brake controller is adapted to control and regulate by performing the method, as shown in Saarelainen et al. (column 3 line 9).
Claim 18: Saarelainen et al. modified by Nakari discloses a method where an elevator system comprises: a brake having an armature that is pulled by an electromagnet to release the brake from a braking position against a spring force into a release position; and a brake controller, as stated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 6 of the response that “Saareleinen does not disclose anything related to reducing a voltage input in response to a typical brake behavior” and “Nakari … teaches nothing about what triggers a reduction from an initial voltage to a holding voltage”. However it was acknowledged in the previous Office Action that Saarelainen et al. did not properly disclose the initial electrical voltage applied to the electromagnet to be reduced to a holding voltage in response to the detection of the typical time behavior. Saarelainen et al. discloses a brake to be controlled with respect to a typical time behavior and a current intensity in said typical time to be measured in order to determine whether the brake is malfunctioning (column 3 line 62 through column 4 line 18). Nakari teaches an initial electrical voltage applied to an electromagnet for releasing the brake to be reduced to a lower holding voltage (page 1 paragraphs [0009], [0011]), where the brake is held open after being released during normal movement of the elevator car, as is recognized in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of Saarelainen et al. and Nakari then properly disclose all claimed limitations of applicant’s invention.
Applicant further states that “[w]hile Nakari may disclose a voltage reduction, Nakari does not disclose that this voltage reduction would be made in response to a detection of a typical time behavior of the measurement current” and “Nakari is not concerned with a control method for triggering the switching from an initial voltage to a holding voltage”. However during normal movement of an elevator car, the elevator car is controlled to initiate movement from a stopped operation, i.e. safely accelerate from zero velocity, before reaching a speed used to move the elevator car to another floor, decelerate during its approach to said another floor, and finally stop the elevator car at said another floor. During said initial movement the brake is at least partially released to allow movement of the elevator car, and then is held open to allow the elevator car to freely move to a different floor. This sequence of events occurs every time during normal movement operations of an elevator car unless a malfunction or abnormality prevents said normal movement operation, as is recognized in the art. Therefore the voltage reduction taught in Nakari is performed during a typical time behavior of the elevator car when the elevator car moves. The teachings of Nakari combined with Saarelainen et al. then properly render obvious applicant’s invention as required by the independent claim.
On page 7, applicant states “this assertion is conclusionary and is based on improper hindsight” and “there is no motivation to combine the voltage reduction of Nakari with the brake condition degradation detection of Saarelainen”. However it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As shown above, during typical movement of an elevator car, a brake is initially released and is then held open to allow the elevator car to freely move to another floor. Nakari was relied on to show that during such typical elevator behavior, an initial voltage is applied to an electromagnet of a brake and then reduced to a holding voltage (page 1 paragraph [0011]) in order to allow the elevator car to freely move. According to Nakari, the reduction in voltage would not require a separate reduced voltage circuit or a separate operation switch” (page 1 paragraph [0011]) during typical movement of the elevator car, and would still allow “rapid cancellation of the energizing of the [electromagnet]” (page 2 paragraph [0025]) for stopping the elevator car in an emergency braking situation in response to an operational fault as shown in Saarelainen et al. (column 1 lines 24-27). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Nakari with the disclosure of Saarelainen et al., thereby rendering obvious applicant’s invention as required by the independent claim.
Additionally, applicant states on page 8 that “the Saareleinen disclosure of a brake degradation diagnosis method does not include any provision for actively controlling a normally operating brake, and therefore applying the Nakari voltage reduction completely changes the principle of operation of Saareleinen”. Saarelainen et al. discloses a brake to be controlled with respect to a typical time behavior and a current intensity in said typical time to be measured in order to determine whether the brake is malfunctioning (column 3 line 62 through column 4 line 18). In the absence of a detected malfunction, Saarelainen et al. then would determine that the brake is operating normally. Said typical time behavior was shown to correspond to an amount of time (pick time) that is needed for an armature to move from the braking position into the release position after applying the initial electrical voltage to the electromagnet (column 6 lines 10-16). As shown above, during typical movement of an elevator car, a brake is initially released and is then held open to allow the elevator car to freely move to another floor. Therefore the typical time behavior corresponds to a typical movement of the elevator car when the brake is operating normally. Nakari was relied on to show that during such typical elevator movement, an initial voltage is applied to an electromagnet of a brake and then reduced to a holding voltage (page 1 paragraph [0011]) in order to allow the elevator car to freely move. The teachings of Nakari then do not change the principle of operation of Saarelainen et al. since the operation of the brake would still be monitored during its pick time in order to determine whether the brake is malfunctioning. The teachings of Nakari combined with Saarelainen et al. then properly render obvious applicant’s invention as required by the independent claim.
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 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 January 27, 2026