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 response filed May 18, 2026. Claims 1 and 3-13 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
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 1, 3-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakari et al. (US 2019/0084793 A1) in view of Della Porta (US 9,457,987 B2) further in view of Hopp (US 9,469,504 B2).
Claims 1 and 9: Nakari et al. discloses a method of controlling an elevator car and an elevator system, where the elevator car is driven with a drive system which includes a drive device (elevator motor) and a brake device (first and second elevator brake) (page 3 paragraph [0029]). A second brake of the brake device is triggered to brake in response to an emergency stop condition (emergency), and a delay is applied between triggering the second brake of brake device and stopping the elevator car such that a time period corresponding to the delay is waited before activating the first brake to stop the elevator car (page 5 paragraph [0049]). Since the brake device is triggered in response to an emergency stop condition, the emergency stop condition would be detected by a safety system of the elevator system, as is recognized in the art. This reference fails to disclose a determination to be made whether the detected emergency stop condition is a motion-hazard emergency stop condition, and to only wait for the time period corresponding to the delay in response to the emergency stop condition being a motion-hazard emergency stop condition. This reference further fails to disclose the delay to be applied between triggering the brake device and stopping the drive device such that a time period corresponding to the delay is waited before stopping the drive device.
However Della Porta teaches a method of controlling an elevator car and an elevator system where an emergency stop condition is determined (column 9 lines 7-11) whether it is a motion-hazard emergency stop condition (overspeed event), and only waits for a time period (about 150 to 600 milliseconds) corresponding to a delay before using a second brake in response to the emergency stop condition being a motion-hazard emergency stop condition (column 3 lines 7-11).
Given the teachings of Della Porta, 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 and elevator system disclosed in Nakari et al. with providing a determination to be made whether the detected emergency stop condition is a motion-hazard emergency stop condition, and to only wait for the time period corresponding to the delay before stopping the elevator car in response to the emergency stop condition being a motion-hazard emergency stop condition. Doing so would “minimize discomfort to passengers when the elevator car is stopped … during an emergency stop … [and] ensure that the elevator is brought to a smooth stop” as taught in Della Porta (column 8 line 66 through column 9 line 11). These references fail to disclose the delay to be applied between triggering the brake device and stopping the drive device such that a time period corresponding to the delay is waited before stopping the drive device.
However Hopp teaches a method of controlling an elevator car and an elevator system where in response to an emergency stop condition (technical problem), a drive device (drive machine) is controlled to brake an elevator car in a motor-brake operating mode, and as soon as a braking effect of a brake device (service brake) is detected, the drive device switches to a braking-torque-free state (column 6 lines 19-28).
Given the teachings of Hopp, 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 and elevator system disclosed in Nakari et al. as modified by Della Porta with providing the delay to be applied between triggering the brake device and stopping the drive device such that a time period corresponding to the delay is waited before stopping the drive device. Doing so would “achieve, at an emergency stop, as short a braking distance as possible and, despite the emergency stop, to offer a user of the [elevator car] a predefined ride comfort” as taught in Hopp (column 2 lines 13-20).
Claim 3: Nakari et al. modified by Della Porta and Hopp discloses a method as stated above, where the delay to be applied between triggering the second brake of brake device and stopping the drive device is shown in Hopp to be predetermined (column 4 lines 39-41).
Claim 4: Nakari et al. modified by Della Porta and Hopp discloses a method as stated above, where the predetermined delay to be applied between triggering the brake device and stopping the drive device is shown in Hopp to correspond to an expected brake drop delay of the brake device resulting from delay times of switching elements and an actuation time for application of the brake (column 9 lines 54-60).
Claim 5: Nakari et al. modified by Della Porta and Hopp discloses a method where a second brake is triggered, and the drive device is stopped after a delay from triggering the second brake, as stated above. The delay to be applied is shown in Hopp to be determined such that a braking force that acts on the elevator car is influenced for a longer period of time, and regulated in magnitude so that uniform braking of the elevator car is possible, resulting in a constant deceleration (column 11 lines 17-34). In order to ensure a uniform braking force being applied between the drive motor acting in a motor-brake operating mode, and the first brake being activated while stopping the drive device, a level of braking force applied in use by the brake device would have to be measured, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 7: Nakari et al. modified by Della Porta and Hopp discloses a method where the drive device is controlled to brake an elevator car in a motor-brake operating mode after the second brake of brake device is triggered, as stated above. The drive device is shown in Hopp to be controlled to decelerate the elevator car in the motor-brake mode (column 5 lines 28-31).
Claim 8: Nakari et al. modified by Della Porta and Hopp discloses a method as stated above, where based on detected statuses, safety relays of a safety chain are opened, as shown in Nakari et al. (page 3 paragraph [0041]). Detection of an emergency stop condition results in a first safety signal going OFF/LOW (page 5 paragraph [0049]). Therefore detecting the emergency stop condition would open the safety chain.
Claim 10: Nakari et al. modified by Della Porta and Hopp discloses an elevator system where the safety system determines the delay to be applied between triggering the brake device and stopping the drive device and waits for the time period corresponding to the delay before stopping the drive device, as stated above. The safety system then includes a safety controller for controlling performance of such operations, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 11: Nakari et al. modified by Della Porta and Hopp discloses an elevator system as stated above, where based on detected statuses, safety relays of a safety chain are opened, as shown in Nakari et al. (page 3 paragraph [0041]). Therefore the safety system comprises the safety chain, and is configured to detect an emergency stop condition, resulting in a first safety signal going OFF/LOW (page 5 paragraph [0049]).
Claims 6, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakari et al. (US 2019/0084793 A1) modified by Della Porta (US 9,457,987 B2) and Hopp (US 9,469,504 B2) as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Gremaud et al. (US 8,267,224 B2).
Claim 6: Nakari et al. modified by Della Porta and Hopp discloses a method where a level of braking force applied in use by the brake device is measured to ensure a uniform braking force, as stated above. These references fail to disclose measuring the level of braking force to comprise monitoring motion of the elevator car after the brake device has been triggered.
However Gremaud et al. teaches a method of controlling an elevator car, where a level of braking force (effective braking force FBeff) that is applied in use by a brake device (brake unit 15) is measured via braking force sensor (16) according to a monitored motion (current acceleration) of an elevator car after the brake device has been triggered (column 7 lines 27-36).
Given the teachings of Gremaud 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 method disclosed in Nakari et al. as modified by Della Porta and Hopp with providing measuring the level of braking force to comprise monitoring motion of the elevator car after the brake device has been triggered. Doing so would allow “checking and possible correction” of the braking force based on monitored motion of the elevator car, as taught in Gremaud et al. (column 7 lines 33-36).
Claim 12: Nakari et al. modified by Della Porta and Hopp discloses an elevator system as stated above, but fails to disclose an absolute position measurement system arranged to determine elevator car position and/or velocity.
However Gremaud et al. teaches an elevator system, where an absolute position measurement system is used to determine elevator car position with respect to absolute position values of exit zones (column 6 line 67 through column 7 line 4).
Given the teachings of Gremaud 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 method and elevator system disclosed in Nakari et al. as modified by Della Porta and Hopp with providing an absolute position measurement system arranged to determine elevator car position. Doing so would allow the system to ascertain whether the elevator car should be stopped at a next exit region based on distance to an exit region, current speed of the elevator car, and a hypothetically required deceleration being too high, as taught in Gremaud et al. teaches (column 7 lines 4-11).
Claim 13: Nakari et al. modified by Della Porta, Hopp and Gremaud et al. discloses an elevator system which determined elevator car position using an absolute position measurement system, as stated above. Gremaud et al. teaches that the system selects a next exit region that the elevator car should be stopped based on distance to an exit region and current speed of the elevator car (column 7 lines 4-11). When the elevator car is to stop at an exit region that is not the next exit region, the delay to be applied after the brake device has been triggered would be adjusted accordingly. The delay then would be determined by monitoring motion of the elevator car using the absolute position measurement system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 6 of the response that “Nakari does not teach … determining a delay between triggering a brake device and later stopping the drive device after waiting through that delay. Nor does Nakari classify emergencies and only defer drive device shutdown for motion-hazard events”. However it was shown in the previous Office Action that Nakari et al. failed to disclose these concepts. Della Porta and Hopp were relied on to teach the limitations missing from Nakari et al. 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). Therefore the combination of Nakari et al. and the teachings of Della Porta and Hopp properly render obvious applicant’s invention as required by the independent claims.
Applicant further states that Della Porta teaches “a brake-coil residual-current technique, not a control strategy that keeps the drive device energized after brake trigger and then stops the drive device later” and “Della Porta’s overspeed and UCM disclosures likewise concern which brake engages first and how fast a brake coil current decays, not whether a delayed drive shutdown is conditionally performed only for motion-hazard emergencies”. However Della Porta teaches using a first and second brake, where activation of the second brake is delayed in response to an overspeed event (column 3 lines 7-9). According to Della Porta then, a second brake is controlled to stop an elevator car after a delay time period is waited in response to a motion-hazard emergency stop condition being detected. Hopp was relied on to teach a second brake as a drive device, controlled to stop an elevator car after a first brake device is activated in response to an emergency condition (column 6 lines 19-28). 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). Therefore Nakari et al. modified by the teachings of Della Porta and Hopp properly render obvious applicant’s invention as required by the independent claims.
Additionally, applicant states “none of [the] references discloses the claimed post-brake-trigger determination and waiting period before stopping the drive device, and none teaches limiting that delayed drive shutdown to motion-hazard emergency stop conditions”. However as shown above, applicant’s claimed limitations were shown through a combination of Nakari et al., Della Porta and Hopp. A determination is made as to whether a detected emergency stop condition is a motion-hazard emergency stop condition, and only waiting a period corresponding to a delay before stopping a second brake device in response to the emergency stop condition being a motion-hazard emergency stop condition (Della Porta: column 3 lines 7-11), and stopping a drive device as a second brake device after a first brake device has been triggered (Hopp: column 6 lines 19-28). Therefore the combination of Nakari et al., Della Porta and Hopp properly render obvious applicant’s invention as required by the independent claims.
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 July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights