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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-14, 25 are 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 1 recites the limitation “one or more elevator control systems” and then recites “a first elevator control system among the one or more elevator control systems” and “a second elevator control system among the one or more elevator control systems”. It is unclear how there can be one or more control systems (specifically how there can be one) if there is required to be a first and second control system. It is unclear if the first and second control system are possible to be the same system? Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the conveying track including one or more rotatable elements, as the one or more rotatable elements including one or more rotatable rollers”. This limitation is unclear.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a top of the one or more rotatable elements being configured to support movement of the load”. This appears to be a misconstruing of the invention as described in the specification. It appears that the conveying track supports the load and not that a top of rotatable elements support the load. The scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karha (EP 2018337 B1) in view of Witczak (PGPub 2016/0304317).
Re Claim 1, as best understood, Karha discloses a method for managing a flow of people and goods within a building, the method comprising providing one or more elevator control systems for automatically controlling movement of elevator cars (para. 40; fig. 1); providing a first passenger elevator 2, the first passenger elevator including a first passenger elevator car for transporting people, the first passenger elevator car being vertically movable in a first elevator hoistway inside the building under construction, vertical movement of the first passenger elevator car being automatically controlled by a first elevator control system among the one or more elevator control systems, and the first passenger elevator car having an interior delimited by a floor, walls, a ceiling and at least one automatic door; providing a goods elevator 3, the goods elevator including a goods elevator car for transporting goods, the goods elevator car being vertically movable beside the first passenger elevator car in a second elevator hoistway inside the building under construction, vertical movement of the goods elevator car being automatically controlled by a second elevator control system among the one or more elevator control systems, and the goods elevator car including at least a transport platform; using the first passenger elevator to transport the people between floors of the building under construction; and using the goods elevator to transport goods between floors of the building under construction (para. 16-18; fig. 1-2). Karha does not disclose the building is under construction. However, Witczak teaches a method for managing a flow of people and goods within a building under construction (para. 29-46; fig. 1-12). It would be obvious to utilize the elevator system in a building while under construction since this allows easy transport of building materials and quick access to high levels of the building with increased speed and ease. Note that there is confusion in the claiming of one or more control systems (see 112 rejection above). If the claims are meant to recite multiple separate control systems, note that Karha teaches that it is well-known to have separate control systems for freight and passenger elevators (para. 6). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide separate control systems in order to isolate freight and passenger elevator use and also since this is well known and easily implemented.
Re Claim 2, Karha does not disclose constructing a second passenger elevator in place of the goods elevator subsequent to using the passenger elevator and the goods elevator for a period of time, the constructing including constructing a second passenger elevator car for transporting people in place of the goods elevator car, the second passenger elevator car being vertically movable beside the first passenger elevator car in the second elevator hoistway, vertical movement of the second passenger elevator car being controllable by a third elevator control system among the one or more elevator control systems, and the second passenger elevator car having an interior delimited by a floor, walls, a ceiling and at least one automatic door; and using both the first passenger elevator and the second passenger elevator to transport the people between floors of the building . However, Witczak teaches replacing elevator cars with new elevator cars after use during construction (para. 39) and also teaches extending a roof of an elevator car (para. 46). The claim recites constructing a second passenger elevator car for transporting people in place of the goods elevator car, however, inherently elevator cars can be used for both uses and thus there is no limitation that limits these cars other than a label being used and thus they are patently indistinguishable in this context. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide separate control systems in order to construct a second passenger elevator car for transporting people in place of the goods elevator car, as taught by Witczak, for the purpose of ensuring a new and working and clean elevator is available for patrons and since the elevator may be dirty or damaged during the construction phase.
Re Claim 4, 11, Karha discloses the using the first passenger elevator includes receiving by the first elevator control system first signals associated with the first passenger elevator; the using the goods elevator includes receiving by the second elevator control system second signals associated with the goods elevator; the using the first passenger elevator includes automatically controlling by the first elevator control system vertical movement of the first passenger elevator car only in response to the first signals among the first signals and the second signals, and the using the goods elevator includes automatically controlling by the second elevator control system vertical movement of the goods elevator car only in response to the second signals among the first signals and the second signals, the first signals and the second signals are received from different signal sources, the first signals being received from first signal equipment and the second signals received from a second signal equipment (para. 16-18). As discussed above for claim 1, Karha teaches that it is well-known to have separate control systems for freight and passenger elevators (para. 6). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide separate control systems in order to isolate freight and passenger elevator use and also since this is well known and easily implemented.
Re Claim 6, Karha discloses the first passenger elevator car is configured to be vertically movable along one or more vertically oriented guide rail lines in the first elevator hoistway (para. 16-18; fig. 1-2).
Re Claim 7, Karha discloses the goods elevator car is configured to be vertically movable along one or more vertically oriented guide rail lines in the second elevator hoistway (para. 16-18; fig. 1-2).
Re Claim 8, Karha discloses the second passenger elevator car is configured to be vertically movable along one or more vertically oriented guide rail lines in the second elevator hoistway (para. 16-18; fig. 1-2).
Re Claims 9-10, Karha does not disclose extending a traveling zone of the first passenger elevator car and goods elevator car to reach higher during one or more temporary pauses of the using of the first passenger elevator and goods elevator car, respectively. However, However, Witczak teaches the elevator system 20 can be used during construction at an early stage of installation. FIG. 7 depicts a partially constructed building 80 having two levels 82, 84 of an elevator system 86 installed. With at least two adjacent levels 82, 84 of the elevator system 86 installed, construction workers can start using the elevator system 86 to build upper levels of both the elevator system 86 and the building 80. Once the stationary part of the propulsion system is installed in the hoistway, and the moving part of the propulsion system is mounted to the elevator car, the elevator system 84 is functional and ready to be used. For example, workers, equipment, and materials for construction of the upper levels of the elevator system 86 and building 80 may be carried from the first level 82 to the second level 84 within the elevator cars 88 using the partially installed elevator system 86. (para. 37). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extending a traveling zone of the first passenger elevator car and goods elevator car to reach higher, as taught by Witczak, for the purpose of allowing workers, equipment, and materials for construction of the upper levels of the elevator system 86 and building 80 may be carried from the first level 82 to the second level 84 within the elevator cars 88 using the partially installed elevator system (para. 37) and since this makes it much easier to build each subsequent level of the building.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karha in view of Witczak, in further view of Yoshioka (PGPub 2017/0183156).
Re Claims 12-13, Karha does not disclose moving a load onto or from the goods elevator car using a loading device, the loading device being mounted on top of a floor of the building under construction in front of an opening leading to the second elevator hoistway, moving a load onto or from the goods elevator car using a loading device mounted on top of the transport platform of the goods elevator car. However, Yoshioka teaches moving a load horizontally using a loading device V which is a carriage or roller conveyor, the loading device being mounted on top of a floor (para. 5-6; Fig. 8). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move a load using a loading device, as taught by Yoshioka, for the purpose of enabling easier conveyance of loads and also since this is well-known in the art and would be much easier than carrying loads by hand.
Re Claim 14, as best understood, Karha does not disclose the loading device comprises a conveying track, a top of the conveying track being configured to support movement of the load, the conveying track including one or more rotatable elements, as the one or more rotatable elements including one or more rotatable rollers, one or more rotatable belts or one or more rotatable chains, and a top of the one or more rotatable elements being configured to support movement of the load. However, Yoshioka teaches moving a load horizontally using a loading device V which is a carriage or roller conveyor, the loading device being mounted on top of a floor (para. 5-6; Fig. 8). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a conveying track including one or more rotatable elements, as taught by Yoshioka, for the purpose of enabling easier conveyance of loads and also since this is well-known in the art and would be much easier than carrying loads by hand.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karha in view of Witczak, in further view of Oh (CN 104507844 A).
Re Claim 25, Karha does not disclose at least one of: the goods elevator car does not have an automatic door; an upper side of the goods elevator car is open; or one or more lateral sides of the goods elevator car is open. However, Oh teaches goods elevator with one or more lateral sides of the goods elevator car is open (Abstract; Fig. 1-3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize goods elevator with one or more lateral sides of the goods elevator car is open, as taught by Oh, for the purpose of reducing costs for the elevator and enabling ease of loading goods onto the elevator and since this is a well-known configuration especially since goods generally do not need as many safety or protection features as compared to human transport.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights