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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/13/2022, 03/27/2023 and 10/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 11 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kugiya et al. (US 2013/0299282 A1) in view of Thumm et al. (US 2009/0277724 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kugiya discloses a system comprising:
a centralized controller (e.g. Fig. 2: 25) configured to coordinate movement of a plurality of elevator cars (e.g. [0031]) in a multicar hoistway (e.g. Figs. 1-2); and
a plurality of car controllers (e.g. Fig. 2: 23, 24) configured to communicate with the centralized controller through a plurality of centralized control flows (e.g. Fig. 2: connection lines between 23-25 indicate control flows), establish car- to-car control flow between at least two of the car controllers (e.g. Fig. 2: connection line between 23-24 indicate control flow), and exchange an elevator car status between at least two of the car controllers (e.g. [0034]),
wherein movement of at least two of the elevator cars in the multicar hoistway is controlled based on the elevator car status (e.g. [0033-0038]) and one or more commands (e.g. [0031]) received through at least one of the centralized control flows.
Kugiya fails to disclose, but Thumm teaches two or more car- to-car control flows (e.g. [0003]: redundant group buses for exchanging signals between individual elevators).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kugiya with the teachings of Thumm to provide redundant buses in an elevator system so as to improve communication accuracy and reliability.
Regarding claim 11, Kugiya discloses a method comprising establishing a plurality of centralized control flows (e.g. Fig. 2: connection lines between 23-25 indicate control flows) between a centralized controller (e.g. Fig. 2: 25) and a plurality of car controllers (e.g. Fig. 2: 23-24) of a multicar hoistway (e.g. Figs. 1-2); establishing car-to-car control flow between at least two of the car controllers (e.g. Fig. 2: connection line between 23-24 indicate control flow); exchanging an elevator car status between the at least two of the car controllers (e.g. [0034]); and controlling movement of at least two elevator cars in the multicar hoistway based on the elevator car status (e.g. [0033-0038]) and one or more commands (e.g. [0031]) received through at least one of the centralized control flows.
Kugiya fails to disclose, but Thumm teaches two or more car- to-car control flows (e.g. [0003]: redundant group buses for exchanging signals between individual elevators).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kugiya with the teachings of Thumm to provide redundant buses in an elevator system so as to improve communication accuracy and reliability.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kugiya discloses the elevator car status comprises one or more of a safety chain status, a target stopping floor, and a motion status (e.g. [0034]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kugiya discloses control of at least two of the elevator cars in the multicar hoistway comprises delaying one or more of elevator door closure and elevator car departure (e.g. [0062]) based on the elevator car status or planning data received through at least one of the car-to-car control flows.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kugiya discloses control of at least two of the elevator cars in the multicar hoistway comprises delaying completion of a movement command from the centralized controller in response to a movement delay status of a nearest elevator car in a targeted path of movement (e.g. [0031-0038]: decelerating and/or stopping trailing car to avoid collision results in delaying completion of a movement command from the centralized controller for the trailing car, for example).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kugiya discloses control of at least two of the elevator cars in the multicar hoistway comprises adjusting a travel speed based on planning data or the elevator car status of one or more elevator cars in a targeted path of movement (e.g. [0031-0038]: decelerating and/or stopping trailing car).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Kugiya discloses the two or more car-to-car control flows between at least two of the car controllers comprise at least one car-to-car control flow that extends beyond a nearest car controller in a targeted path of movement (broadly interpreting the limitation as if car-to-car control flows can establish communication between at least 3 elevator car controllers: Kugiya in [0076] discloses three or more cars may also be disposed inside the shared hoistway; thus, implies the control flows shown in Fig. 2 can be shared with 3 or more car controllers).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 10, 12-14 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846