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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 2, 2026 has been entered.
Claim 11 has been canceled without prejudice. Claims 10 and 12-18 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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). A 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 10-17). The typical time behavior is detected, and in response to the detection of the 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). If the typical time behavior is excessive, it includes a reduction (regulated down) in the measured current intensity when the armature is pulled away from the braking position (column 7 lines 23-30). 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 12: Saarelainen et al. modified by Nakari discloses a method as stated above, where the typical time behavior includes an increase in the measured current
intensity after the reduction 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 pages 5-6 of the response that “Neither reference is cited in the Office Action as teaching reducing the initial electrical voltage applied to the electromagnet to a holding voltage in response to a detection of a typical time behavior ‘of the measured current intensity that characteristically occurs when the armature moves from the braking position into the release position’”. However it was shown that Saarelainen et al. discloses a typical time behavior (brake pick time) to characteristically occur when an armature moves from the braking position into the release position after applying the initial electrical voltage to an electromagnet (column 6 lines 10-17). Nakari was shown to teach an initial electrical voltage applied to an electromagnet to be reduced to a lower holding voltage (page 1 paragraphs [0009], [0011]). The brake is typically held open using said lower holding voltage after being released in order to allow normal elevator travel operations, 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 render obvious all claimed limitations of applicant’s invention.
Applicant further states on page 8 that “Saareleinen’s disclosure of a brake degradation diagnosis method does not include any provision for actively controlling a normally operating brake, and therefore … by applying the Nakari voltage reduction would 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
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 June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights