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 May 18, 2026. Claim 2 has been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending with claims 6 and 10-14 being previously withdrawn. An action on the merits is as follows.
Rejection of claims 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph has been withdrawn.
Applicants’ 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.
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, 3-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 2003/0070883 A1) in view of Caputo et al. (US 4,433,756).
Claim 1: Foster et al. discloses an elevator position reference system shown in FIG. 1 to comprise a hoistway (12) extending in a vertical direction and a first position measurement tape arranged in the hoistway to extend in the vertical direction (page 2 paragraph [0043]). A first upper tensioning device (rectangular connector) is shown in FIG. 13 to be connected to bracket (302) and to an upper end of the first position measurement tape (300) so as to apply a tensioning force to the first position measurement tape in the upwards vertical direction, and a first lower tensioning device (bracket 308) connected to bracket (302) and to a lower end of the first position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the first position measurement tape in the downwards vertical direction via spring (page 3 paragraph [0047]), as is recognized in the art. This reference fails to disclose an intermediate fixing device to be secured at a fixing position in the hoistway and to be fixed to an intermediate portion of the first position measurement tape, between the upper end and the lower end of the first position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion.
However Caputo et al. teaches an elevator position reference system, where an intermediate fixing device (bracket 74) is shown in FIG. 1 to be secured at a fixing position in a hoistway (24) and to be fixed to an intermediate portion of a first position measurement tape (coded tape 50), between an upper end and a lower end of the first position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion with respect to each floor (column 4 lines 31-37).
Given the teachings of Caputo 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 position reference system disclosed in Foster et al. with providing an intermediate fixing device to be secured at a fixing position in the hoistway and to be fixed to an intermediate portion of the first position measurement tape, between the upper end and the lower end of the first position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion. Doing so would prevent floor position memories from needed to be reprogrammed even “while the building may settle or compress after it is constructed” as taught in Caputo et al. (column 4 lines 35-39).
Claim 3: Foster et al. modified by Caputo et al. discloses an elevator position reference system as stated above, where the intermediate fixing device is shown in FIG. 3 of Caputo et al. to comprise a fixing bracket (right angle member 108) including a first portion secured at the fixing position and a second portion fixed to the intermediate portion of the first position measurement tape (column 7 lines 17-24). The second portion is shown to be horizontally offset relative to the first portion so that the intermediate portion of the first position measurement tape is located horizontally away from the fixing position in the hoistway.
Claim 4: Foster et al. modified by Caputo et al. discloses an elevator position reference system where vertical movement of the intermediate portion is prevented, as stated above. The intermediate fixing device is shown in FIG. 3 of Caputo et al. to comprise a clamping plate (flat plate members 104, 106) arranged to apply pressure to a first side of the first position measurement tape so as to prevent said vertical movement of the intermediate portion (column 7 lines 17-24).
Claim 5: Foster et al. modified by Caputo et al. discloses an elevator position reference system as stated above, where the fixing position is shown in Caputo et al. to be on a wall of the hoistway (column 4 lines 31-33).
Claim 15: Foster et al. modified by Caputo et al. discloses an elevator position reference system as stated above, where an elevator system is disclosed in Foster et al. to comprise the elevator position reference system and further comprises an elevator car (10) (page 2 paragraph [0043]) and a position measurement sensor included in enclosure body member (100) mounted on the elevator car and arranged to detect the first position measurement tape for determining the vertical position of the elevator car within the hoistway (page 3 paragraph [0051], [0053]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 2003/0070883 A1) modified by Caputo et al. (US 4,433,756) as applied to claims above, further in view of Lee (US 9,469,501 B2).
Claim 7: Foster et al. modified by Caputo et al. discloses an elevator position reference system where a first position measurement tape is arranged in a hoistway extending in the vertical direction, a first upper tensioning device is connected to an upper end of the first position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the first position measurement tape in the upwards vertical direction, and a first lower tensioning device is connected to a lower end of the first position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the first position measurement tape in the downwards vertical direction, as stated above. These references fail to disclose a second position measurement tape arranged in the hoistway to extend in the vertical direction below the first position measurement tape, a second upper tensioning device to be connected to an upper end of the second position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the second position measurement tape in the upwards vertical direction and a second lower tensioning device to be connected to a lower end of the second position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the second position measurement tape in the downwards vertical direction.
However Lee teaches an elevator position reference system where a first and second position measurement tape (detectable member) is positioned at discrete locations within a hoistway without being continuous (column 20 lines 17-19). Therefore a first position measurement tape (optical tape 110) and a second position measurement tape (optical tape 110) would be arranged in the hoistway extending in a vertical direction as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, where the second position measurement tape would be below the first position measurement tape.
Given the teachings of Lee, 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 position reference system disclosed in Foster et al. as modified by Caputo et al. with providing a second position measurement tape arranged in the hoistway to extend in the vertical direction below the first position measurement tape, a second upper tensioning device to be connected to an upper end of the second position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the second position measurement tape in the upwards vertical direction and a second lower tensioning device to be connected to a lower end of the second position measurement tape so as to apply a tensioning force to the second position measurement tape in the downwards vertical direction. It has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Doing so would allow replacement of a smaller length of a position measurement tape when damaged or otherwise providing false readings, without requiring replacement of a position measurement tape extending an entire length of a hoistway, thereby saving time and money.
Claim 8: Foster et al. modified by Caputo et al. and Lee discloses an elevator position reference system including first and second position measurement tape, each having an upper tensioning device and a lower tensioning device respectively, as stated above. FIG. 13 of Foster et al. shows mounting components (brackets 302) arranged in the hoistway to mount the upper tensioning devices and the lower tensioning devices. These references fail to disclose a single mounting component to mount the second upper tensioning device and the first lower tensioning device.
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 a single mounting component to mount the second upper tensioning device and the first lower tensioning device, since it has been held that making various elements into an integral structure involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965,968,144 USPQ 347,347 (CCPA 1965). Doing so would ensure the first and second position measurement tapes remain in a fixed position relative to each other, allowing “elevator positioning system [to] still align elevator car with landings … [even though] building may undergo a compression due to settling and other factors” as taught in Lee (column 8 lines 22-28).
Claim 9: Foster et al. modified by Caputo et al. and Lee discloses an elevator position reference system where an intermediate fixing device is secured at a fixing position in the hoistway and fixed to an intermediate portion of the first position measurement tape, between the upper end and the lower end of the first position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion, as stated above. These references fail to disclose a second intermediate fixing device to be secured at a second fixing position in the hoistway and to be fixed to an intermediate portion of the second position measurement tape, between the upper end and the lower end of the second position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion of the second position measurement tape.
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 a second intermediate fixing device to be secured at a second fixing position in the hoistway and to be fixed to an intermediate portion of the second position measurement tape, between the upper end and the lower end of the second position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion of the second position measurement tape, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Doing so would prevent floor position memories from needed to be reprogrammed even “while the building may settle or compress after it is constructed” as taught in Caputo et al. (column 4 lines 35-39) with respect to the second position measurement tape.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state on page 7 of the response that “Foster does not disclose any structure fixed to an intermediate portion of tape 300 that prevents vertical movement of that intermediate portion” and the citations in Foster et al. “do not display any bracket, clamp, or other fixing device attached to an intermediate portion of the tape between its ends so as to prevent vertical movement”. However, it was shown in the previous office action that Foster et al. failed to disclose the limitations of previous claim 2, including an intermediate fixing device fixed to an intermediate portion of the first position measurement tape, between the upper end and the lower end of the first position measurement tape, so as to prevent vertical movement of the intermediate portion. Caputo et al. was relied on to teach the limitations corresponding to an intermediate fixing device at an intermediate portion of a measurement tape. 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 Foster et al. and the teachings of Caputo et al. properly render obvious applicants’ limitations as required by the claims.
Applicants further state that the upper tensioning device of Foster et al. is not “an upper tensioning device applying an upward tensioning force”. However as shown in FIG. 13 of Foster et al., “the top of tape 300 is attached to bracket 302 which is attached to elevator rail 304” (page 3 paragraph [0047]). Since the top of the tape is attached to the elevator rail via the bracket and rectangular connector, as shown, the amount of tape formed below the top would pull against the top of the tape downward due to gravity. To counter such gravitational pull from the lower portion of the tape, the bracket would have to provide an upward tensioning force on the top of the tape. Such counter forces ensure that the top of the tape doesn’t move downward due to gravity. It should be noted that the claims do not describe how nor to what magnitude the upper tensioning device is to provide the upward tensioning force. Therefore, Foster et al. properly discloses applicants’ limitation as required by the claims.
Additionally, applicants state that “Caputo does not disclose the full combination now required by claim 1… which requires a first upper tensioning device connected to the upper end of the tape so as to apply an upward tensioning force, and a first lower tensioning device connected to the lower end of the tape so as to apply a downward tensioning force, together with the intermediate fixing device”. However as shown in above, a first upper tensioning device is connected to an upper end of the tape so as to apply an upward tensioning force, and a first lower tensioning device is further shown in Foster et al. to be connected to the lower end of the tape so as to apply a downward tensioning force via spring (page 3 paragraph [0047]). Caputo et al. was relied on to teach an intermediate fixing device, as shown above. 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 Foster et al. and the teachings of Caputo et al. properly render obvious applicants’ limitations as required by the claims.
On pages 7-8, applicants state that “the Office Action [doesn’t] provide an adequate reasoned basis for combining Foster and Caputo to arrive at the presently claimed arrangement” because the “rational is directed to Caputo’s own floor-reference problem, not to the problem addressed by the present application”. However, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The combination of Foster et al. and Caputo et al. then properly render obvious applicants’ limitations as required by the 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 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights