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 § 102
2. 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Studer et al. (US 20210206602 A1, the US PGPUB version of WO 2019238530 A1 published on 12/19/2019).
Regarding claim 17, Studer discloses an elevator system (Figs. 1 and 6) and a method for practicing the system, the system comprising: a shaft (5) divided into multiple shaft portions; a car (4) arranged in the shaft; a plurality of friction drive units (8) mounted on at least one shaft wall of the shaft, each of the friction drive units having at least two friction wheels (e.g., 40.7 and 8.1 of Fig. 6), and wherein the car is moved in the shaft portions by the friction drive units during operation of the elevator system (para. 0042, 0062); and wherein at least one of the friction drive units in one of the shaft portions is adapted to be driven adjustably such that the car is moved at a continuously adjustable speed in the one shaft portion during the operation (para. 0062, 0042: “This ensures that the driving speed of the construction phase elevator car 4 can be continuously regulated so that any driving speed between a minimum speed and a maximum speed can be actuated”).
Regarding claim 18, Studer discloses: wherein the at least one friction drive unit in the one shaft portion includes an endless belt (e.g., 40.2 of Fig. 6), the friction wheels of the at least one friction drive unit being surrounded by the endless belt and wherein at least one of the friction wheels is driven by a drive unit (40.1).
Regarding claim 19, Studer discloses: wherein the car includes at least one traction plate (e.g., the car frame 4.1 including the guide shoes 4.1.1, etc.) to which a driving force for moving the car in the shaft is temporarily transmitted by the at least one friction drive unit during the operation (para. 0042).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Studer discloses: wherein the at least one friction drive unit includes additional wheels that are tensioned by a tensioning mechanism (e.g., spring 34.1) to exert a pressing force directed toward a part of the car (para. 0054: “The pivot lever 32 associated with each of the friction wheels is pivotally mounted at its other end on a pivot axis 33 fixed to the car frame 4.1 …”); wherein the tensioning mechanism includes at least one spring (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 22, Studer discloses: wherein the part of the car is a traction plate (e.g., car frame 4.1) to which a driving force for moving the car in the shaft is temporarily transmitted by the at least one friction drive unit during the operation (para. 0054, 0062).
Regarding claim 23, Studer discloses: wherein the shaft is a first shaft and including a second shaft (e.g., conductor line/track 11 on which the corresponding wiper contacts 12 is depressed), a changeover point (the point where the wiper contacts 12 contact the conductor line/track 11) between the first shaft and the second shaft and a carriage unit (12) displaceable at the changeover point between the first shaft and the second shaft during the operation, and wherein the car is transferred at the changeover point between the first shaft and the second shaft by the carriage unit during the operation (para. 0044).
Regarding claim 24, Studer discloses: wherein at ones of the shaft portions connected at the changeover point, the car is moved by a friction drive unit arranged on the carriage unit between the first shaft and the second shaft (para. 0044, 0062).
Regarding claim 25, Studer discloses: wherein at least one of: at least one of the friction drive units in each of the shaft portions is adapted to be driven adjustably such that the car is moved at a continuously adjustable speed in the shaft during operation (para. 0042, 0062); the friction drive units are arranged in pairs on one of the shaft wall of the shaft or on a side of the car in each of the shaft portions (Fig. 6); and the friction drive units are arranged in two pairs friction drive units on two opposite ones of the shaft walls of the shaft or on two opposite sides of the car in each of the shaft portions (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 26, Studer discloses: wherein the friction drive units forming each of the pairs are arranged on the shaft wall directly next to each other such that running surfaces of the friction drive units in each of the pairs are directed toward each other (Fig. 6), and wherein the car is moved by engaging a traction plate (car frame) on the car between the running surfaces (para. 0044, 0062; see also Figs. 1-6 and related text).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 27-29 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studer et al.
Regarding claims 27 and 33, Studer disclose a method for driving the car of the elevator system according to Claim 17 including operating the friction drive units to continuously adjust a speed of the car (para. 0009, 0024: “allows perfect regulation of the driving speed of the construction phase elevator car”; see also para. 0028); wherein the shaft is a first shaft (5) and the elevator system includes a second shaft (11), the car being moved in the first and second shafts by the friction drive units arranged on shaft walls of the first and second shafts, and operating the friction drive units to move the car through the first and second shafts at continuously adjustable speeds during the operation of the elevator system (para. 0042, 0064).
Studer does not mention explicitly: operating the friction drive units to continuously adjust a speed of the car based on at least one operating state of another car in the elevator system; operating the friction drive units to reduce the speed of the car when traveling to a stopping point at which the another car is stopped or stopping when it is determined that the car traveling will reach the another car at the stopping point at a non-reduced speed; wherein the another car being moved in the first and second shafts by the friction drive units arranged on shaft walls of the first and second shafts, and operating the friction drive units to move the another car through the first and second shafts at continuously adjustable speeds during the operation of the elevator system.
The examiner takes official notice that, in a building comprising multiple elevator cars, elevator services such as operating one elevator car to adjust a speed of that car based on at least one operating state of another car and/or operating one elevator car to reduce the speed of that car when traveling to a stopping point at which the another car is stopped or stopping when it is determined that the car traveling will reach the another car at the stopping point at a non-reduced speed are commonly practiced in the real world. In view of the elevator car’s speed regulation technique taught by Studer (e.g., para. 0042), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Studer’s invention to arrive the claimed features as recited in instant claims 27 and 28 by regulating the driving speed of the construction phase elevator car as demanded or desired. It is deemed that the skilled person would conceive and apply such intended uses of the known invention without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. Further, it has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Studer does not mention explicitly: operating the friction drive units to reduce the speed of the car when traveling to a stopping point at which the another car is stopped or stopping when it is determined by a computing unit that the car traveling will, at a non-reduced speed, reach the stopping point within a stopping time at the stopping point determined by the computing unit for the another car, and determining the stopping time by the computing unit based on passenger numbers.
The examiner takes official notice that a computing unit (e.g., a general purpose computer having generic computer components for performing computing activities via basic function of the computer) configured to determine that an elevator car traveling will, at a non-reduced speed, reach a stopping point within a stopping time at the stopping point determined by the computing unit for another elevator car that is stopped or stopping, and further determining the stopping time by the computing unit based on passenger numbers is well-known in the art. In view of the elevator car’s speed regulation technique taught by Studer (e.g., para. 0042), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Studer’s invention to arrive the features as recited in instant claim 29 by regulating the driving speed of the construction phase elevator car as desired. It is deemed that the skilled person would conceive and apply such intended uses of known inventions without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. Further, it has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art.
Regarding claim 31, Studer discloses: the method according to Claims 27 including operating the friction drive units to reduce the speed of the car wherein the car is prevented from stopping before reaching a next scheduled stop at a stopping point (para. 0042).
Regarding claim 32, Studer discloses: wherein the friction drive units are adapted to move the car at a standard speed and at least one reduced speed (para. 0042).
6. Claims 30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studer et al. in view of THUM et al. (US 20200317467 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Studer does not mention explicitly: transferring the car (4) from the shaft (5) to another shaft of the elevator system at a changeover point, and operating the friction drive units to reduce the speed of the car traveling from the shaft to a stopping point of the another shaft at which the another car is stopping or stopped before the car reaches the changeover point when it is determined by a computing unit that the car, traveling at a non-reduced speed and taking into account a changeover time at the changeover point, will reach the stopping point within a stopping time at the stopping point for the another car determined by the computing unit.
THUM discloses a shaft changing assembly for an elevator system (para. 0018), comprising: transferring the car (3 of Fig. 1) from one shaft (4A) to another shaft (4B) of the elevator system at a changeover point, and operating a speed regulation unit (e.g., the brake, see para. 0005) to reduce the speed of the car traveling from the shaft (4A) to a stopping point of the another shaft (4B) before the car reaches the changeover point when it is determined by a computing unit that the car, traveling at a non-reduced speed and taking into account a changeover time at the changeover point, will reach the stopping point within a stopping time at the stopping point for the another car determined by the computing unit (para. 0009-0011, 0040-0041).
Since Studer teaches the general condition of the elevator car’s speed regulation technique, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Studer’s invention to THUM’s shaft changing assembly to change the speed of the car traveling from the shaft to another shaft as an intended use of the Studer invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
The combination of Studer and THUM is not clear: the car is traveling from the shaft to a stopping point of the another shaft at which the another car is stopping or stopped. However, the limitation in question is considered merely a design option of the changeover point. Since THUM teaches the general condition of the elevator system (para. 0018), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Studer’s invention to THUM’s shaft changing assembly to change the speed of the car traveling from the shaft to a stopping point of the another shaft at which the another car is stopping or stopped, as an intended use of the Studer invention. The mere application of a known technologies to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 34, Studer does not mention explicitly: wherein the elevator system includes a changeover point that horizontally connects the first and second shafts, and at least one carriage unit, wherein each of the car and the another car is displaceable between the first and second shafts by the carriage unit at the changeover point, wherein the car and the another car are moved relative to the carriage unit by at least another friction drive unit integrated in the carriage unit, the another friction drive unit braking, accelerating and holding in place the car and the another car, and when one of the car and the another car in one of the first and second shafts comes to a standstill at the carriage, displacing the carriage unit horizontally into another of the first and second shaft and then moving the one car vertically out of the carriage unit by the another friction drive unit into the another shaft.
THUM discloses an elevator system (Fig. 1), comprising: a changeover point (2) that horizontally connects the first and second shafts (4A/4B), and at least one carriage unit (e.g., a linear motor layout comprising stator coils 6 firmly installed on the guide rail 2 and armature magnets 7, especially permanent magnets, firmly installed on the car 3, service brake 9, stopping bumper 8, etc.), wherein each of the car and another car is displaceable between the first and second shafts by the carriage unit at the changeover point (Abstract; para. 0018, 0030), wherein the car and the another car are moved (e.g., decelerating the car) relative to the carriage unit by at least another friction drive unit (e.g., the combination of service brake 9 and stopping bumper 8) integrated in the carriage unit (para. 0030-0031, 0035), the another friction drive unit braking, accelerating and holding in place the car and the another car (para. 0031-0032), and when one of the car and the another car in one of the first and second shafts comes to a standstill at the carriage, displacing the carriage unit horizontally into another of the first and second shaft and then moving the one car vertically out of the carriage unit by the another friction drive unit into the another shaft (Abstract; para. 0018, 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate THUM’s shaft changing assembly into the Studer elevator system to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would provide a shaft changing assembly for a multi-elevator system through which an elevator car can be moved from one elevator shaft to another elevator shaft smoothly (THUM, para. 0002-004). The mere application of a known technologies to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Contact Information
7. 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 on (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