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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of Group I and Group A in the reply filed on October 29, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5-8 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because the following elements lack proper antecedent basis in the claim(s):
Line 11: “the open position”
Line 13: “the magnitude”
Line 16: “the threshold current”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10 and 12-15 are 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.
Claims 1 and 14 include the limitation “carry out a test operation when the braking element is in the open position”. However the term “when” renders the claim(s) indefinite. It is unclear whether the claim necessarily requires the test operation to be carried out in a situation where the braking element is not in the open position. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “carry out a test operation in response to the braking element being in the open position”.
Claims 1 and 15 include the limitation “magnitude of the electrical current remains greater than the threshold current during said”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the threshold current”. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the threshold value, or introduce a new element into the claim(s). For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “magnitude of the electrical current remains greater than the threshold value during said”.
Claim 10 includes limitations pertaining to “first (and second) conductor(s)“. However the term “conductor” renders the claim indefinite, as it is not properly defined in the specification. It is unclear how a conductor is to differ from an actuator transistor. For examining purposes, these limitations are interpreted as pertaining to “first (and second) conduction path(s)”.
Claim 10 is directed to the “elevator system of claim 1, arranged” and includes limitations pertaining to “the actuator transistor(s)”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the actuator transistors” as claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, only describes a single actuator transistor. It is unclear whether applicants intend claim 10 to depend from claim 3, which describes a plurality of actuator transistors, or reference the single actuator transistor described in claim 1. For examining purposes, this claim is interpreted as being directed to the “elevator system of claim 3, arranged”.
Claims 12 and 13 include limitations that are described as “optionally” and “preferably”. However the terms “optionally” and “preferably” render the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examining purposes, these limitations are interpreted as not being included in the claim.
Claim 13 includes limitations pertaining to “the actuator transistor(s)”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the actuator transistors” as claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, only describes a single actuator transistor. It is unclear whether applicants intend claim 13 to depend from claim 3, which describes a plurality of actuator transistors, or reference the single actuator transistor described in claim 1. For examining purposes, these limitations are interpreted as pertaining to the actuator transistor”.
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”.
Claims 2-4 and 9 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherits all claimed limitations. These claims do not correct the deficiencies of claim 1.
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).
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 when the braking element is in the open 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 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 an actuator transistor to be arranged in series along the current flow path between the supply and the brake coil, and the actuator transistor 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, wherein the test operation comprises operating the actuator transistor in its disabled mode for the time period.
However Kattainen teaches an elevator system, a safety circuit and a method for an elevator system, where an actuator transistor is used instead of a relay (page 3 paragraph [0047]), 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 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, 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 transistor in its disabled mode for the time period in order to control the brake in its closing action. 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]).
Claim 3: Saarelainen et al. modified by Kattainen 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 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 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 first and second conduction path, where the actuator transistors are connected in series along the first conduction path.
Claim 12: Saarelainen et al. modified by Kattainen 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 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) 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 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 transistor 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 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 transistor 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 transistor is 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) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nikander (US 12,098,056 B2).
Claim 9: Saarelainen et al. modified by Kattainen 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 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,243,296 pertaining to monitoring a solenoid within a predetermined time period of changing states.
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 November 29, 2025