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
The applicant has overcome the rejection to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-15, 17, and 19 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) by amending claim 1. The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-15, 17, and 19 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) is withdrawn.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 2, 4-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakala et al. (20180251343) in view of Xie (CN 109677388 A). Hakala et al. discloses (claim 1) a brake system for an elevator car 16 with a plurality of elevator car brakes (Figs. 1, 2, and 4, braking via brake surfaces 51,55 on two stator beams 18 and two upper movers 24 and two lower movers 26 paragraphs [0062] and [0068]), a plurality of electrical control units (frequency converters, paragraph [0014]), and a plurality of electrical power supplies (inherent DC intermediate circuit of each frequency converter can be seen as a power supply for driving each mover and its brake), each one of the electrical control units is arranged to be supplied by at least one of the electrical power supplies (DC intermediate circuit of each drive), and the brake system is configured so that at least two of the plurality of elevator car brakes are operable in case of a fault in any one or simultaneously in any two of the electrical control units and the electrical power supplies (if the drive for any one or two of the four movers fails, the other movers and their incorporated brakes are still operable). Hakala et al. does not disclose that at least two of the elevator car brakes (four brakes) each is arranged to be operated by at least two of the electrical control units (four individual frequency converters)
Xie teaches for a brake system for an car with a plurality of car brakes 7,8, a plurality of control units 1,2, and a plurality of electrical power supplies 41,42, wherein each one of the electrical control units 1,2 is arranged to be supplied by at least one of the electrical power 41,42 supplies, and the brake system is configured so that at least two of the plurality of car brakes 7,8 are operable in case of a fault in any one of the electrical control units 1,2 and the electrical power supplies 41,42 (paragraph [0049]) and that (claim 1) at least two of the car brakes 7,8 each is arranged to be operated by at least two of the electrical control units 1,2 (Figure 4) for the purposes of providing fail safe operation of at least two of the car brakes. See Xie paragraphs [0060] – [0062].
Since Hakala et al. and Xie are both in the same field of endeavor the purpose disclosed by Xie would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Hakala et al. It would have been obvious at a time before the invention was effectively filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the brake system of Hakala et al. such that at least two of the elevator car brakes each is arranged to be operated by at least two of the electrical control units for the purposes of providing fail safe operation of at least two of the elevator car brakes.
Regarding claim 2, Hakala et al. discloses that the number of the plurality of electrical control units and/or the number of plurality of electrical power supplies is equal to or one more than the number of the plurality of elevator car brakes (paragraphs [0014] and [0062])
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Hakala et al. discloses that the number of the plurality of elevator car brakes is at least three or four (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Hakala et al. discloses that each one of the electrical power supplies is arranged to supply only one of the electrical control units (paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Xie teaches that the at least two of the electrical control units 1,2, which are arranged to operate one of the car brakes 7,8, are arranged in parallel with respect to each other to operate said one of the car brakes (Xie, figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Hakala et al. discloses that each one of the plurality of elevator car brakes is adapted to be arranged in connection to one of a plurality of motor units (movers 24,26) of the elevator car 16 (paragraphs [0062] and [0068].
Regarding claim 8, Hakala et al. discloses that the elevator car brakes are adapted to be arranged at ends of the motor units, respectively (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 9, Hakala et al. further discloses an elevator system comprising at least one elevator car 16 movable in an elevator shaft by a plurality of motor units (four).
Regarding claim 10, Hakala et al. discloses that a number of the plurality of motor units is at least four (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 11, Hakala et al. discloses that the electrical control units of the brake system are further arranged to operate the motor units (paragraphs [0014]-[0019] and [0068]).
Regarding claim 12, Hakala et al. discloses that the electrical power supplies of the brake system are further arranged to supply the motor units (paragraphs [0014]-[0019] and [0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Hakala et al. discloses that the motor units are movers of a linear motor (paragraphs [0014]-[0019] and [0068]).
Regarding claim 14, Hakala et al. discloses that the linear motor comprises at least two stator beams 18, wherein each one of the stator beams 18 is arranged to co-act with at least one of the movers 24,26.
Regarding claim 15, Hakala et al. further discloses a plurality of elevator cars movable in the elevator shaft, wherein said each one of the elevator cars comprises the plurality of motor units, and the elevator system comprises a plurality of brake systems (Fig. 6).
Prior Art
Prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure for showing other elevator brake systems with linear motors and failsafe controls.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 16, 18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The improvement comprises (claims 3 and 16) that the number of electrical power supplies is one less than the number of the electrical control units.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Lazo whose telephone number is (571) 272-4818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Nathaniel Wiehe, can be reached on (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for this Group 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.
/THOMAS E LAZO/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3745
April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights