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 .
Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review
Applicant's request for review of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action, January 12, 2026, is persuasive. The current Office Action will include a new rejection addressing the subject matter added to the original claims by the amendment filed on 12/18/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, line 8, should read -- one or more electronic systems -- instead of “one or more electronics system”. Additionally, the dependency of claim 8 needs to be corrected, since claims 8 depends on itself. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1 and 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskar (US Publication 2019/0077637) and Mϋller (US Patent 5464072).
Claim 1, Bhaskar teaches an elevator system comprising at least one cab 12 comprising: at least one tractive drive system 18 attached to the top of cab 12 (see paragraph 0038), wherein the tractive drive system 18 (through wheels 20) is configured to transmit frictional forces to a surface 16 within a vertical shaft 14, and wherein the tractive drive system is urged into engagement with rail 16. The engagement (traction) force is applied by a spring element 28, a rotary actuator 30, or a hydraulic actuator 32; and a transportation system comprising a cradle such as carriages 108/112, which receives the cab 12 moving in a vertical upward/downward direction and translocate the cab from one discontinuous segment of a shaft to a discontinuous segment of another shaft (when the cab moves from one shaft to another shaft 14a-14e using an intermediate transfer zone as described in paragraphs 0047-0048). The tractive drive system is fully enclosed in the cradle 112 when the cradle translocate for example at the bottom transfer zone seen in fig. 8.
Bhaskar does not disclose how the tractive drive system (wheels) regulate normal force applied to the surface (rails) within the shaft 14.
However, Mϋller teaches a self-propelled elevator systems comprising: at least one cab 1; a tractive drive system including friction wheels 9 running on track rails 12 (surfaces) within a vertical shaft 5, the friction wheels transmit frictional forces to the surfaces and said forces are automictically regulated (see col. 4 lines 29-32 specifically and the entire description of the forces applied to the surfaces of the shaft in col. 4 lines 2-61); and an electronic system (processor) 21 for controlling the operation of the friction wheels 9 based on the output of force sensor 20 (see the description of fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the electronic system of Mϋller to automatically control the force applied by the tractive drive system to surface of the elevator shaft, since said automated controller provides smooth ride quality for elevator passengers, energy efficiency, and safety because it replaces manual or fixed-friction systems with smart and adaptive controller that match the necessary traction force to the operational needs of the elevator system at any moment as briefly described by Mϋller in col. 1 lines 32-42.
Claim 4, Bhaskar describes in fig. 5 and corresponding description that elevator cab 12 is permitted to rotate 360 degrees within the vertical shaft. The preferred cylindrical shape for the shaft is considered a conventional design in elevator construction, offering predictable structural stability, and compatible with existing systems. There is no evidence that a non-cylindrical shaped shaft would not work with the recited system, so the choice of the shape of the elevator shaft is an obvious design choice.
Claim 5, Mϋller describes an electronic system 21 for controlling movement of the elevator cab by controlling the traction force applied from traction wheels 9 to track rails 12. Additionally, Mϋller describes in col. 5 lines 33-35 the use of magnetically or optically sensed code strips disposed at the shaft walls, these code strips are conventionally use to detect the cab’s position within the shaft as it moves up and down and ultimately allowing a control system to know and control the cab’s location.
Claims 6 and 11, Mϋller describes for example in col. 5 lines 26-32 that his elevator system comprises wireless communication.
Claim 7 recites the method of operation for an elevator system comprising the structural elements, sensors and control systems, as described in the above structural claims 1 and 4-6. As described above Bhaskar/Mϋller teach a method for controlling an elevator system comprising operating an elevator system; receiving/processing feedback information from a plurality of sensors; operating movement of an elevator cab within a vertical shaft; and translocating a self-propelled cab using a cradle, from a discontinuous segment of a vertical shaft to a discontinuous segment of another shaft, when the elevator cab uses an intermediate transfer station in the vertical shaft to perform the translocation.
Claim 8, the examiner would assume claim 8 depends from claim 7 since claim 7 is the only independent method claim listed before claim 8.
Bhaskar teaches in fig. 5 and corresponding description that his elevator system 10 includes multiple elevator cabs 12 moving between shafts 14a-14b using the translocation technique described above in claim 1.
Claim 9, Bhaskar teaches a plurality of shafts 14a-14e connected by a transfer station 100/104.
Claim 10, Bhaskar discloses an elevator system 10 having multiple cabs 12 and a plurality of elevator shafts 14a-14e, wherein the plurality of cabs and shaft optimize elevator passenger movement between floors of a building.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the tractive drive system" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional documents listed in the attached PTO-892 describe elevator system comprising elevator cars that can move from one elevator shaft to a different elevator shaft through a transfer station using traction wheels.
The examiner has used Bhaskar, US Publication 2019/0077637, having a publication date of 3/14/19. However, there is a provisional application 62/555773 with a filling date of 9/8/2017 that could also be used in the 35 USC 103 rejection, since said provisional application contains the exact same description of the invention in the US Publication.
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 2837
Prosecution Insights