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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments received 10/15/2025 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
PNG
media_image1.png
192
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
….
PNG
media_image2.png
308
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
403
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reminds to the Applicant that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. See MPEP 2111.01. Moreover, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With these principles in mind, the Examiner asserts that Savage does disclose or render obvious an elevator position reference system including the limitations as recited in instant claims 1-5.
Regarding the claim elements argued by the Applicant, the Examiner considers that Savage teaches the elevator position reference system as claimed in instant claim 1 and further mentions explicitly: a lower tensioning device (i.e., the spring 38 attached to the lower end of the first position measurement tape 30 as shown in Fig. 1). Savage is silent on: an upper tensioning device 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 wherein a lower end of the first position measurement tape is fixed within the hoistway. However, it is deemed that these features are merely an intended use of Savage’s lower tensioning device to a specific instance such as the upper end of the first position measurement tape, to provide an additional spring seat at the upper end of the first position measurement tape. Such an intended use is also considered a matter of design option (i.e., optional, or not critical to the operation of the position measurement tape, see also Savage, col. 3, lines 30-36) but does not affect the functionality of the intended use of the invention. The Examiner asserts that the skilled person in the art would conceive and apply such modification without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances when general technical knowledge in the relevant field of the art is used. See MPEP 2144.04.
Applicant argues that: See, for example, paragraph [0008] of this application stating “By providing two position measurement tapes, ….” See also, paragraph [0035] stating “Averaging two readings from the first and second position measurement tapes allows a more accurate position of the elevator component to be determined, and in particular allows the effect of thermal elongation to be effectively removed, giving an absolute position measurement value having improved accuracy compared to the use of a single tape.” Applicant’s reliance upon the specification in this regard is noted. However, the features in the specification to which Applicant refers are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments are reliant upon the issues discussed above, thus are deemed unpersuasive as well. The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage (US 3856116 A)
Regarding claim 1, Savage discloses an elevator position reference system (col. 1, lines 55-65), comprising: a hoistway (14) extending in a vertical direction (Fig. 1); a first position measurement tape (30 Figs. 1 and 2) arranged in the hoistway to extend along a portion of the hoistway in the vertical direction; a second position measurement tape (32 Fig. 1) arranged in the hoistway to extend along at least some of said portion of the hoistway in the vertical direction; and a lower tensioning device (38), 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 (col. 3, lines 30-41), wherein an upper end (36) of the second position measurement tape is fixed within the hoistway (col. 3, lines 30-41).
Savage does not mention explicitly: an upper tensioning device 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, wherein a lower end of the first position measurement tape is fixed within the hoistway.
However, the feature in question is considered merely an intended use of Savage’s lower tensioning device (i.e., the spring 38 attached to the lower end of the first position measurement tape 30 as shown in Fig. 1) to a specific instance such as the upper end of the first position measurement tape, which is treated as a matter of design option but does not affect the functionality of the intended use of the invention. The skilled person in the art would conceive and apply such modification without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances when general technical knowledge in the relevant field of the art is used.
Regarding claims 2-3, Savage discloses: wherein the lower tensioning device (38 Fig. 1) comprises a fixing portion (402) and a tensioning portion (404), wherein the fixing portion (36) is fixed to a second position within the hoistway (4) and the tensioning portion (38) is connected to the lower end of the second position measurement tape and is moveable relative to the fixing portion so as to apply the tensioning force (col. 3, lines 30-41); wherein the tensioning portion (38) comprises a resilient member (spring).
Regarding claim 4, Savage discloses: wherein the lower tensioning device comprises a weight connected to the lower end of the second position measurement tape and moveable in the downwards vertical direction relative to the hoistway so as to apply the tensioning force (col. 3, lines 30-41).
Regarding claim 5, Savage discloses: wherein the first position measurement tape (30) and the second position measurement tape (32) are arranged along the same wall of the hoistway (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Savage does not mention explicitly: wherein for the majority of the at least some of said portion of the hoistway (14), along which both the first and second position measurement tapes extend, the first position measurement tape (30) and the second position measurement tape (32) are less than 1 m apart, optionally less than 50cm, further optionally less than 10cm, further optionally less than 5cm.
However, the features in question are considered mere design choices, which does not affect the functionality of the intended use of the invention and the skilled person would apply without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. It has been held that an obvious matter of engineering design choice is not patentably advanced.
Regarding claim 7, Savage discloses: an elevator system (Fig. 1) comprising the elevator position reference system of claim 1, and further comprising: an elevator component (12) moving along the hoistway (14) in the vertical direction; and at least one position measurement sensor mounted on the elevator component and arranged to output a first position measurement reading from the first position measurement tape at a first position and a second position measurement reading from the second position measurement tape at the first position (see discussion of Figs. 2-7; see also col. 8, lines 13-34).
Regarding claim 8, Savage discloses: the elevator system of claim 7, further comprising a computing device arranged to calculate a difference between the first and second position measurement readings (col. 1, lines 58-65; col. 3, lines 19-30).
Regarding claim 9, Savage discloses: wherein the elevator component (12) is an elevator car (Fig. 1), and further comprising a computing device arranged to calculate an absolute elevator car position at the first position using the first and second position measurement readings (col. 3, lines 19-30).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 14-15, Savage discloses or renders obvious the claimed invention (see discussion for claims 1-9 above).
Regarding claim 13, Savage is silent on: during an initial learning phase, taking at least one first calibration reading from the first position measurement tape at at least one calibration position using a sensor moving with the elevator component within the hoistway; taking at least one second calibration reading from the second position measurement tape at at least one calibration position using a sensor moving with the elevator component within the hoistway; and storing the first and second calibration readings in a memory.
However, Examiner takes official notice that calibrating a position measurement device during an initial leaning phase and string the calibration readings in a memory is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Savage o incorporate these well-known calibration techniques to arrive the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to improve the accuracy of the output of the elevator position reference system taught by Savage. The mere application of a known technologies to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Conclusion
5. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANCHUN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5981. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571)270-7938. 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.
/JIANCHUN QIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837