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 April 14, 2026. Claim 3 has been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1, 2 and 4-15 are pending with claims 5-8 and 11 being previously withdrawn. An action on the merits is as follows.
Objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Objection to claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Rejections of claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 includes the limitation “the braking element is in the open position”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the braking element”. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the braking coil, or introduce a new element into the claim. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “a braking element is in the open position”.
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, 4, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarelainen et al. (US 11,975,944 B2) in view of Kattainen (US 2018/0002138 A1), further in view of Herkel et al. (US 2017/0283212 A1).
Claims 1, 14 and 15: Saarelainen et al. discloses an elevator system, an elevator safety system for an elevator system and a method of testing a brake in an elevator system (column 1 lines 6-9) comprising: a brake including a braking element (brake armature) and an electromagnetic brake coil, said brake being arranged to selectively pass an electrical current from an output of a supply to an input of the brake coil via a current flow path, and to apply a mechanical bias force to operate the braking element in a closed position when a magnitude of the electrical current is less than a threshold value, wherein the electromagnetic coil produces an electromagnetic force that overcomes said bias force to operate the braking element in an open position when the electrical current is equal to or greater than the threshold value (column 6 lines 10-23), as is recognized in the art. A controller is arranged to carry out a test operation (diagnosis) to start a closing action of the brake, and therefore before the braking element is in the closed position, wherein the test operation comprises controlling the brake to have a closing action for a time period (predetermined threshold), monitoring the electrical current during the time period, and determining whether a magnitude of the electrical current reduces during said time period (column 3 lines 5-14, 32-38, 49-50). The braking element is maintained in the open position when not closed, and therefore the test operation is performed while the braking element is maintained in the open position. The time period corresponds to a brake drop time (column 6 lines 6-10) and is selected such that the magnitude of the electrical current remains greater than the threshold current during said time period (column 6 lines 17-23). This reference fails to disclose a plurality of actuator transistors to be arranged in series along the current flow path between the supply and the brake coil, each of the plurality of the actuator transistors to have an enabled mode in which it allows passage of the electrical current, and a disabled mode in which it interrupts the current flow path thereby preventing passage of the electrical current, the test operation to comprise operating each of said plurality of actuator transistors in its disabled mode for the time period, and the controller to be configured to carry out the test operation for each of said plurality of actuator transistors individually and sequentially.
However Kattainen teaches an elevator system, a safety circuit and a method for an elevator system, where actuator transistors are used instead of a relays (page 3 paragraph [0047]), and shown in Fig. 1 to be arranged in series along a current flow path between a supply (mains 4) and a brake coil (magnetizing coil 5A) (page 3 paragraph [0048]). The actuator transistors have an enabled mode which allows passage of the electrical current, and a disabled mode which interrupts the current flow path thereby preventing passage of the electrical current, as is recognized in the art.
Given the teachings of Kattainen, 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 elevator system, safety circuit and method disclosed in Saarelainen et al. with providing an actuator transistor to be arranged in series along the current flow path between the supply and the brake coil, wherein the actuator transistor has an enabled mode in which it allows passage of the electrical current, and a disabled mode in which it interrupts the current flow path thereby preventing passage of the electrical current. The test operation then would comprise operating the actuator transistors in a disabled mode for the time period in order to start the closing action of the brake, while the braking element remains in the open position. Doing so would allow multiple brakes to be opened independently, which “is advantageous for example when testing braking force of the independent brakes by opening the brakes one at a time” as taught in Kattainen (page 3 paragraph [0048]). These references fail to disclose the test operation to be carried out for each of said plurality of actuator transistors individually and sequentially.
However Herkel et al. teaches an elevator system, a safety circuit and a method for an elevator system, where a test operation is carried out (page 4 paragraph [0034]) for each of a plurality of actuator transistors (power semiconductor switches) individually and sequentially while letting the other actuator transistors to remain unchanged (page 8 paragraph [0063]).
Given the teachings of Herkel 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 elevator system, safety circuit and method disclosed in Saarelainen et al. as modified by Kattainen with providing the test operation to be carried out for each of said plurality of actuator transistors individually and sequentially. Doing so would “combine the elevator brake safety function with the performance function for the elevator brake without compromising independent activation of a safety device” as taught in Herkel et al. (page 8 paragraph [0063]).
Claim 3: Saarelainen et al. modified by Kattainen and Herkel et al. discloses an elevator system as stated above, where an actuator transistor is shown in Kattainen to be used instead of a relay (page 3 paragraph [0047]), a plurality of which are provided in series along the current flow path between the supply and the brake coil, and the controller is arranged to carry out the test operation for each of the plurality of actuator transistors independently (page 3 paragraph [0048]), and therefore sequentially.
Claim 4: Saarelainen et al. modified by Kattainen and Herkel et al. discloses an elevator system where electrical current is monitored through the brake coil, as stated above. The controller then would be connected to a current monitor arranged to monitor the electrical current through the brake coil, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 10: Saarelainen et al. modified by Kattainen and Herkel et al. discloses an elevator system as stated above, where the power supply (mains 4) is shown in Fig. 1 of Kattainen to be connected to the brake coil (5A) via a forward current path and a return current path, where the actuator transistors are connected in series along the forward current path.
Claim 12: Saarelainen et al. modified by Kattainen and Herkel et al. discloses an elevator system as stated above, where the supply is disclosed in Saarelainen et al. to comprise a DC power supply such that the electrical current is a direct current applied to the brake coil (column 6 lines 10-17).
Claim 13: Saarelainen et al. modified by Kattainen and Herkel et al. discloses an elevator system as stated above, where an actuator transistor is shown in Kattainen to be used instead of a relay (page 3 paragraph [0047]), and shown in Fig. 1 to include switch (1) connected between the supply (mains 4) and the actuator transistor (2). Said switch is considered a drive switch which allows selective power from supply to the brake coil.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarelainen et al. (US 11,975,944 B2) modified by Kattainen (US 2018/0002138 A1) and Herkel et al. (US 2017/0283212 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nakari et al. (US 2019/0084793 A1).
Claim 2: Saarelainen et al. modified by Kattainen and Herkel et al. discloses an elevator system as stated above, but fails to disclose a safety chain to include a plurality of safety chain switches arranged in series, wherein a gate terminal of the actuator transistors is connected to an output of the safety chain such that when one or more of the safety chain switches in open, the actuator transistor is operated in its disabled mode.
However Nakari et al. teaches an elevator system, where a safety chain is connected to a brake drive (10) and includes a plurality of safety chain switches (13) (page 3 paragraph [0041]) arranged in series, as is recognized in the art.
Given the teachings of Nakari 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 elevator system, safety circuit and method disclosed in Saarelainen et al. as modified by Kattainen and Herkel et al. with providing a safety chain connected to the brake drive to include a plurality of safety chain switches arranged in series. A gate terminal of the actuator transistors then would be electrically connected to an output of the safety chain such that when one or more of the safety chain switches in open, the actuator transistors are operated in its disabled mode. Doing so would “enable a safe stop of the [elevator system] motor and/or activation of an [elevator system] brake in any case of safety problems, which drive should be easy to manufacture” as taught in Nakari et al. (page 1 paragraph [0002]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarelainen et al. (US 11,975,944 B2) modified by Kattainen (US 2018/0002138 A1) and Herkel et al. (US 2017/0283212 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nikander (US 12,098,056 B2).
Claim 9: Saarelainen et al. modified by Kattainen and Herkel et al. discloses an elevator system as stated above, but fails to disclose a varistor connected in parallel across the brake coil.
However Nikander teaches an elevator system, where a varistor (18) is connected in parallel across a brake coil (12) (column 5 lines 38-40), as shown in the figure.
Given the teachings of Nikander, 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 elevator system, safety circuit and method disclosed in Saarelainen et al. as modified by Kattainen and Herkel et al. with providing a varistor connected in parallel across the brake coil. Doing so would provide “clamping [of] the brake coil voltage and dropping the brake faster in case [actuator transistor] is opened” as taught in Nikander (column 5 lines 43-45).
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 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights