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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18 ends in a comma rather than a period. 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.
Claim 16 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the front-end actuator" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the rear-end actuator" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 7-8, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H11199162 A (Okada, Applicant’s cited prior art) in view of US 20170320705 A1 (Honda).
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches:
An elevator system comprising:
an elevator car (figure 1a) comprising:
one or more doors (2, 4);
a platform (5) for accommodating at least one trolley (wheelchair);
one or more control panels (9) in the elevator car (“An operation panel 9 is provided inside each of the front panel 1 and the rear panel 3.” Paragraph [0028] of the previously provided machine translation, line 6); and
one or more dynamic stoppers (6) installed on the platform and configured to operate in a first position (lowered) and a second position (raised); and
one or more actuators coupled to the one or more dynamic stoppers (actuators not shown, page 4, last paragraph discusses each stopper being “automatically projected” based on a wheelchair being sensed, an actuator is required to initiate automatic movement), respectively and configured to switch the one or more dynamic stoppers from the first position to the second position when a command is provided from the one or more control panels;
wherein the command from each of the one or more control panels (9) is provided by an operator, wherein the operator presses a button (“stopper projection button” abstract, lines 5-6) on the one or more control panels.
Okada does not teach:
inserting a physical key and the button being a key switch button.
However, Honda teaches:
An elevator control panel, and
an operator inserting a physical key on the control panel (paragraph [0022], lines 8-10, “The evacuation guide turns a key to select “ON” with the key inserted in the key switch 9…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to require a physical key to operate the stoppers of Okada, as taught by Honda, to prevent accidental deployment of the stoppers. Untimely deployment of the stoppers could result in injury of passengers, providing physical keys only to select operators ensures the stopper projection button is not accidentally activated.
Regarding claim 2, Okada further teaches:
wherein the one or more doors comprise a front door (2) and a rear door (4) of the elevator car, and wherein the one or more control panels comprise a first control panel (9 near door 2) located near to the front door and a second control panel (9 near door 4) located near to the rear door.
Regarding claim 3, Okada further teaches:
wherein the one or more dynamic stoppers comprise a front-end stopper (FES) (6a) installed near the front door and a rear-end stopper (RES) (6b) installed near the rear door of the elevator car.
Regarding claim 7, Okada further teaches:
wherein the first position corresponds to a position of the one or more dynamic stoppers grounded along the platform (page 4, paragraph 9, lines 3-4, “in the normal state, the stopper 6 is stored in the lower part of the floor 5 and the floor 5 is flat”) and the second position corresponds to a position of the one or more dynamic stoppers elevated from the platform (figure 1b).
Regarding claim 8, Okada further teaches:
wherein in the second position, the one or more dynamic stoppers are elevated at a predetermined angle with respect to the platform (approximate 45 degree angle as shown in figure 1b is predetermined) based on a diameter of a roller (7) of the at least one trolley (the stoppers are designed to prevent movement of a wheelchair wheel in a known diameter range).
Regarding claim 12, Okada and Honda further teach:
wherein the one or more dynamic stoppers (6a, 6b, Okada) switch from the first position to the second position when the key switch button (9, Honda) is operated by the operator.
Regarding claim 17, Okada further teaches:
wherein the one or more dynamic stoppers operating in the first position (lowered) do not restrict the movement of the at least one trolley (the lowered position of 6a in figure 3c does not restrict movement of 7) wherein the one or more dynamic stoppers operating in the second position restrict the movement of the at least one trolley (6b in figure 3c restricts movement of 7).
Regarding claim 20, Okada teaches:
A method comprising:
receiving a command at one or more control panels (9) in an elevator car (“An operation panel 9 is provided inside each of the front panel 1 and the rear panel 3.” Paragraph [0028] of the previously provided machine translation, line 6) to switch one or more dynamic stoppers (6a, 6b) from a first position (lowered) to a second position (raised), wherein
the one or more dynamic stoppers are installed on a platform (5) of the elevator car (figure 1a),
the elevator car comprises one or more doors (2, 4), and
the one or more control panels is installed in the elevator car (figure 1a);
switching the one or more dynamic stoppers from the first position to the second position using one or more actuators coupled to the one or more dynamic stoppers, respectively (actuators not shown, page 4, last paragraph discusses each stopper being “automatically projected” based on a wheelchair being sensed, an actuator is required to initiate automatic movement).
Okada does not teach:
inserting a physical key and the button being a key switch button.
However, Honda teaches:
An elevator control panel, and
an operator inserting a physical key on the control panel (paragraph [0022], lines 8-10, “The evacuation guide turns a key to select “ON” with the key inserted in the key switch 9…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to require a physical key to operate the stoppers of Okada, as taught by Honda, to prevent accidental deployment of the stoppers. Untimely deployment of the stoppers could result in injury of passengers, providing physical keys only to select operators ensures the stopper projection button is not accidentally activated.
Claims 9, 11, and 14-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H11199162 A (Okada, Applicant’s cited prior art) in view of US 20170320705 A1 (Honda) and further in view of JP H0867466 A (Nishizawa).
Regarding claim 9, Okada and Honda teach:
The elevator system of claim 3.
Okada and Honda do not teach:
wherein the front-end stopper operates in the second position and the rear-end stopper operates in the first position when the at least one trolley enters from the rear door, and wherein the front-end stopper and the rear-end stopper operate in the first position when the at least one trolley exits from the front door.
However, Nishizawa teaches:
An elevator system with front-end and rear-end stoppers (63, 64), and
wherein the front-end stopper (63) operates in the second position and the rear-end stopper (64) operates in the first position when the at least one trolley enters from the rear door (figure 10d), and wherein the front-end stopper and the rear-end stopper operate in the first position when the at least one trolley exits from the front door (with both front and rear doors 52, 53 open the car or trolley can exit the front door and both stoppers are in the first, lowered position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the elevator system of Okada and Honda in the process taught by Nishizawa so that the front end stopper is raised and the rear end stopper is lowered with a trolley enters from the rear door to avoid damage to stop the trolley in the correct position and avoid damage to the front door while allowing the trolley to roll past the rear end stopper, and have both stoppers lowered when exiting to allow trolley movement and prevent damage to the stoppers. Nishizawa notes on page 1 of the attached machine translation, paragraph [0002], lines 1-2, “an electric stopper is provided on the floor of the elevator car to prevent the vehicle from overshooting in order to protect the elevator car door.” Each respective stopper is in the first or second position during trolley movement to allow the movement of the trolley while protecting the elevator car doors.
Regarding claim 11, Okada and Honda teach:
The elevator system of claim 3.
Okada and Honda do not teach:
wherein the front-end stopper operates in the first position and the rear-end stopper operates in the second position when the at least one trolley enters from the front door, wherein the front-end stopper and the rear-end stopper operate in the first position when the at least one trolley exits from the rear door.
However, Nishizawa teaches:
An elevator system with front-end and rear-end stoppers (63, 64), and
wherein the front-end stopper (63) operates in the first position and the rear-end stopper (64) operates in the second position when the at least one trolley enters from the front door (figure 10b), wherein the front-end stopper and the rear-end stopper operate in the first position when the at least one trolley exits from the rear door (with both front and rear doors 52, 53 open the car or trolley can exit the rear door and both stoppers are in the first, lowered position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the elevator system of Okada and Honda in the process taught by Nishizawa so that the rear end stopper is raised and the front end stopper is lowered when a trolley enters from the front door to avoid damage to stop the trolley in the correct position and avoid damage to the rear door while allowing the trolley to roll past the front end stopper. Nishizawa notes on page 1 of the attached machine translation, paragraph [0002], lines 1-2, “an electric stopper is provided on the floor of the elevator car to prevent the vehicle from overshooting in order to protect the elevator car door.” Each respective stopper is in the first or second position during trolley movement to allow the movement of the trolley while protecting the elevator car doors.
Regarding claim 14, Okada and Honda teach:
The elevator system of claim 1.
Okada and Honda are silent to the connection of the actuators to other components in the elevator system.
However, Nishizawa teaches:
wherein each of the one or more actuators is connected with one or more components (the elevation motors are connected to the control components 11, 12, 13 as shown in the diagram of figure 3) and the one or more components is connected with each of the one or more control panels (control components 11, 12, 13 are connected to the remote controller through control unit 12, “The operation control unit 12 outputs a door open signal while receiving a wheel detection signal from the wheel detection sensor 4a, even if a call for a certain floor is registered or the prescribed door opening time is exceeded.” Page 6, paragraph 7, lines 1-3 of the attached machine translation, and “when registering a car call or performing a door opening/closing operation with the remote controller.” Page 7, paragraph 2, lines 5-6. The control unit 12 receives car calls from the remote controller and determines whether to respond based on inputs from 11.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have control system components connecting the actuators to the control panels, as taught by Nishizawa, with the elevator system of Okada and Honda to allow control of the stoppers in particular conditions of the elevator system.
Regarding claim 15, Nishizawa further teaches:
wherein each of the one or more control panels (remote controller) communicates the command to the one or more components (car calls from the remote controller are relayed to control unit 12, see above) when a command (“car call” page 7, paragraph 2, line 6) is provided at the one or more control panels and the one or more components communicates the command to the one or more actuators (page 5, paragraph 6, lines 6-7, “the electric stoppers 2a and 2b are configured to descend or rise in conjunction with opening and closing of the front car door 3a and the rear car door 3b.” and page 6, paragraph 6, lines 3-5, “When the operation control unit 12 receives the OFF signal from the wheel detection sensor 4a, it outputs a door close command after a predetermined time, for example, the time required to stop the vehicle, closes the front car door 3a, and closes the door. In conjunction with this, the front electric stopper 2a is raised.”).
Regarding claim 16, Nishizawa further teaches:
wherein the front-end actuator and the rear-end actuator operate in the expanded position (extended coil spring position of Yano) on receiving a command from the one or more components enabling the one or more dynamic stoppers to operate in the second position (the elevation motors are connected to control component 12 as shown in the diagram of figure 3, Nishizawa, page 6, paragraph 6, lines 3-5, “When the operation control unit 12 receives the OFF signal from the wheel detection sensor 4a, it outputs a door close command after a predetermined time, for example, the time required to stop the vehicle, closes the front car door 3a, and closes the door. In conjunction with this, the front electric stopper 2a is raised.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the actuators of Okada and Honda to operate in the expanded position upon receiving a command from a control component as taught by Nishizawa in order to prevent damage to the elevator car doors. Nishizawa teaches a control unit 12 that receives a signal from a wheel detection sensor that indicates the wheel is in a proper position and subsequently sends a command to close the associated elevator car door and simultaneously raise the associated stopper. This procedure prevents not only damage to the trolley but also damage to the door. Nishizawa notes on page 1 of the attached machine translation, paragraph [0002], lines 1-2, “an electric stopper is provided on the floor of the elevator car to prevent the vehicle from overshooting in order to protect the elevator car door.”
Regarding claim 18, Nishizawa further teaches:
wherein the one or more dynamic stoppers (2a, 2b) automatically switch from the first position to the second position based on inputs (“wheel detection signals” page 6, lines 3-4) from one or more sensors (4a, 4b) installed in the elevator car.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date od the claimed inventio to use sensors to automatically deploy the stoppers as taught by Nishizawa with the elevator system of Okada and Honda to secure the trolley without requiring further inputs from a passenger or operator.
Regarding claim 19, Nishizawa further teaches:
wherein the one or more dynamic stoppers automatically switch from the second position to the first position based on a door opening signal when the elevator car reaches a destination floor (in the automatic mode described on page 2, paragraph 10 through page 3, paragraph 3 and shown in figure 10 each stopper 63, 64 lowers from the raised second position to the lowered first position when a door opening signal is received for the respective door associated with the stopper).
Claims 4-6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H11199162 A (Okada, Applicant’s cited prior art) in view of US 20170320705 A1 (Honda) and further in view of JP 2009202996 A (Yano, Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 4, Okada and Honda teach:
The elevator system of claim 3.
Okada and Honda are silent to the configuration of the actuators.
However, Yano teaches:
An elevator system with two stoppers (22, 32) with respective actuators (20, 30), and
wherein the one or more actuators comprise a front-end actuator (electromagnetic actuator of 20) coupled to the front-end stopper and a rear-end actuator coupled to the rear-end stopper (electromagnetic actuator of 30), respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for each stopper of Okada and Honda to have a respective actuator as taught by Yano to enable individual control of each stopper. The ability to control each stopper individually allows the front-end stopper to be lowered while the rear-end stopper is raised so a wheeled trolley or wheelchair can move into the space between the stoppers while being prevented from moving beyond the rear-end stopper. Yano notes on page 3, paragraph 5, lines 4-6, “it is possible to prevent the carriage from colliding with the landing door and the car door when the carriage gets on and off, and accompanying the deformation of the landing door and the car door, and the deformation of the guide shoe of each door A door opening/closing failure can be prevented.”
Regarding claim 5, Yano further teaches:
wherein the front-end actuator (electromagnetic actuator of 20) and the rear-end actuator (electromagnetic actuator of 30) operate in an expanded position to articulate the front-end stopper and the rear-end stopper to the second position (coil spring 42 is in an expanded position to articulate 22 or 32 to the second, raised position as can be seen in figure 2, expansion of spring 42 raises 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electromagnetic actuators of Yano in the elevator system of Okada with a reasonable expectation of success for the well-known benefits of energy efficiency and fast response times.
Regarding claim 6, Yano further teaches:
wherein the front-end actuator (electromagnetic actuator of 20) and the rear-end actuator (electromagnetic actuator of 30) operate in a retracted position to articulate the front-end stopper and the rear-end stopper to the first position (coil spring 42 is in a retracted position to articulate 22 or 32 to the first, lowered position as can be seen in figure 2, retraction of spring 42 lowers 22).
Regarding claim 13, Yano further teaches:
wherein each of the one or more actuators is coupled to an arm (arm, annotated figure 2) and the arm is installed on a flange (flange, annotated figure 2) connected to the platform (15).
PNG
media_image1.png
233
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Yano, annotated by the Examiner
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6, paragraph 5 Applicant argues that Okada and Honda do not teach all of the limitations found in amended claim 1. Applicant notes on page 7 that Honda’s key switch is located in the hall of the elevator system and not within the elevator car as claimed and further that the key switch of Honda is intended for a purpose other than for deploying stoppers in an elevator car. The Examiner agrees that the position and intended purpose of the key of Honda vary from the position and intended purpose of the key claimed. However, Honda is not relied upon to teach the position of the control panel nor the intended use of the key. Honda is relied upon to teach the use of a physical key in conjunction with the control panel of Okada. The control panel of Okada is used to deploy the stoppers and is located within the elevator car.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M MUDWILDER whose telephone number is (571)272-6068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am - 7:30 pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at (571)272-2097. 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.
/M.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights