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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/3/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In reference to applicant’s comments that the added limitation to independent claim 10 is not taught by the applied prior art, please refer to paragraph 0038 where Herkel et al describes the data acquisition can begin during deceleration of the elevator car and stop once the car has fully stopped. The rejection of record will be modified to show how the applied prior art teaches the new added limitation. Additionally, the new claims will be rejected using the same prior art.
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(s) 10-17 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herkel et al (US Publication 2017/0355560).
Claim 10, Herkel et al teaches a system/method for predicting deterioration of a brake system of a passenger moving system comprising: placing a sensor 20 within (inside) a passenger moving system 10, the sensor 20 is in communication with a motor 18 (see paragraph 0028); activating the sensor 20 when an elevator car 12 is decelerated/stopped using brake 32; performing data acquisition each time the elevator car is stopped using the brake, wherein the data acquisition can also start as the elevator car starts to decelerate and stops when the elevator car has fully stopped; refining the received data by assessing braking parameter such as braking distance from application of the brake and stopping of the elevator car; using controller 22 to determine the braking distance; repeating the data acquisition and refining during the movement/stopping of the elevator car; and initiating a maintenance operation by controller 22 in response to the calculated braking distance being greater than a predetermined value. See paragraphs 0037-0040, where Herkel et al describes the steps described above.
Claim 11, Herkel et al describes sensor 20 as an encoder.
Claim 12, Herkel et al describes applying a filter operation, performing the braking capability test with a loaded elevator car and an unloaded car, in order to provide a consistent mass so that subsequent braking capability tests are performed user similar circumstances. See for example the description given in paragraph 0034.
Claims 13 and 15, Herkel et al describes, paragraph 0040, predetermined braking distance values are set according to a code of regulation pertaining to passenger moving systems.
Claim 14, the specified time period used to acquire data related to the passenger moving system and refining any information is not given any patentable weight since it is considered a design choice.
Claims 16-17, the specific code of regulation used in the determination of a problem with the calculated braking distance is not given any patentable weight, since it is inherent that the required regulation codes will be used, said regulation codes will depend on the location and type of the passenger moving system.
Claim 23, it is inherent that if it has been determined the elevator system is not performing within mandatory regulation codes, said elevator will not operate until maintenance has not been provided.
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 18-22 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 18 is unclear as to what the one or more pre-determined filters are. What does it mean to apply one or more filters to acquired data?
Claims 19-21, is applicant intending to claim that data would only be collected when the moving system is moving in the wrong direction or when the moving system is stopped due to technical maintenance or when the moving system is moving at a full capacity and there is no free space for the moving system? How are these so call filters going to be applied when claim 10 specifies that the data is acquired when the moving system starts to slow down and continue until it comes to a stop?
Claim 22 is rejected because it depends on a rejected 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.
Claim(s) 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herkel et al (US Publication 20170355560), of record.
Claims 18-21, the specific “filters” or when the data is specifically acquired during operation of the moving system is considered a design choice and is not given any patentable weight. Herkel et al describes in paragraph 0041 that measuring the stopping distance is performed under defined conditions, these conditions could very well be identified as “the filters”.
Claim 22, the units for calculating the stopping distance are a preferred design, since the invention would perform equally well with any units.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally documents listed in the attached PTO-892 form describe other methods or circuits for determining the deterioration of moving systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846