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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Amendments & Remarks filed on 01/14/2026 for application number 17/907,682 filed on 09/29/2022, in which claims 16-30 were originally presented for examination. Claim 29 is currently amended, and claim 30 has been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 16-29 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of (1) applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20168221.8, filed on 04/06/2020, and (2) applicant’s claim this application to be a 371 of PCT/EP2021/058944, filed on 04/06/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 05/24/2024 & 12/20/2022 have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 01/14/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §101: The rejections of claim(s) 29, for being not directed to patent-eligible subject matter, is/are withdrawn, as the amended said claim(s) filed on 01/14/2026 has/have overcome the rejection(s) as recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/07/2025.
Regarding the Claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1) & USC §103: Applicant’s argument(s) regarding the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 as being clearly anticipated by the prior art of Daisuke (JP-2016223615-A) has/have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“Daisuke merely describes observing actuator current waveforms under a fixed, rectified AC power supply and inferring internal actuator states …
the current provided by the rectified AC power supply will rise until the core starts moving at time t1 …
the variation of the current as shown in Fig. 6, and which is generally associated with some variation in the electric power, results primarily from the electromechanical design of the brakes, and the superimposed fluctuations or ripples are determined by the grid power supply.
Claim 16 requires an active variation of the supplied power until the braking element switches its state at the release power value. The variation is performed by means of the brake monitoring device or another device, and does not rely merely on a constant variation of a rectified AC Power Supply as in Daisuke.”
(see Remarks pages 6-10; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to Daisuke for disclosing the state of the electromagnetic drive unit 11 is determined using the current value, e.g., current I3 shown in FIG. 6, when first core 23 and second core 24 are separated from each other, i.e., release mechanism. Daisuke further discloses that when the attractive force becomes greater than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions approaching each other, and when the attractive force generated by the magnetic field inside the cylindrical hole 21a of the housing 21 becomes smaller than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions away from each other.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the reference(s) fail to show certain features of applicant's invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., The variation is performed by means of the brake monitoring device or another device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC §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.
Claims 16-22, 24 & 26-29 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Patent Application No. JP-2016223615-A by Daisuke et al. (hereinafter “Daisuke”), which is found in the IDS submitted on 12/20/2022
As per claim 16, Daisuke discloses a method for checking a current functional state of a brake of an elevator installation (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1 [reproduced here for convenience] & 2-8 and ¶¶30-47, discloses the elevator 1, and the hardware configuration of each part of Diagnostic Unit in Electromagnetic Brake Device 10), wherein the elevator installation includes a driving machine driving a traction sheave in rotation (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶30-47, discloses Hoisting Machine 6), wherein the traction sheave during rotation displaces a cable-type suspension means holding an elevator car (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶30-47, discloses Rope 3 & Car 2), wherein the brake has a stationary part and a rotatable part that is rotationally fixedly coupled to the traction sheave (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1, 2 [reproduced here for convenience] & 3-8 and ¶¶30-47, discloses Electromagnetic Brake Device 10, wherein braking member 15 biases a first arm portion 13 and a second arm portion 14 and drum member 6b is driven to rotate together with the sheave), wherein a braking mechanism is arranged on the stationary part (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶19 & 30-47, discloses electromagnetic brake device 10 includes electromagnetic drive unit 11, support unit 12, first arm unit 13, second arm unit 14, braking member 15, and brake pad(s) 16),
PNG
media_image1.png
666
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Daisuke’s Fig. 1 (emphasis added)
wherein the braking mechanism has a displaceable braking element, a biasing mechanism and a release mechanism (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶30-47 & 74, discloses electromagnetic drive unit 11, the first core 23 and second core 24, wherein the state of the electromagnetic drive unit 11 is determined using the current value, e.g., current I3 shown in FIG. 6, when first core 23 and second core 24 are separated from each other), wherein the braking element is displaceable between a braking configuration, in which the braking element frictionally interacts with the rotatable part of the brake, and a released configuration, in which the braking element does not frictionally interact with the rotatable part of the brake (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶29-47, discloses the first arm portion 13 and the second arm portion 14 rotate against the biasing force of the braking member 15 in directions in which the end portions 13 a and 14 a move away from each other. As a result, the brake pads 16 provided on the first arm portion 13 and the second arm portion 14 move away from the drum member 6b),
PNG
media_image2.png
508
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Daisuke’s Fig. 1 (emphasis added)
wherein the biasing mechanism mechanically biases the braking element with an elastic biasing force toward the braking configuration (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶22, 29-49 & 53, discloses the braking member 15 biases the first arm portion 13 and the second arm portion 14 in a direction in which they approach each other. Daisuke further discloses the first arm portion 13 and the second arm portion 14 rotate against the biasing force of the braking member 15 in directions in which the end portions 13 a and 14 a move away from each other, when the attractive force becomes greater than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions approaching each other, and when the attractive force generated by the magnetic field inside the cylindrical hole 21a of the housing 21 becomes smaller than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions away from each other), wherein the release mechanism has an electrical actuator that, depending on an electrical power supplied to the actuator, produces a force that acts on the braking element and counteracts the elastic biasing force produced by the biasing mechanism (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶22, 30-49, 53 & 74, discloses a rectified AC power supply is used, the current flowing through the coil 22 oscillates at a predetermined frequency. Daisuke further discloses electromagnetic drive unit 11 [i.e., electrical actuator], the first core 23 and second core 24, wherein the state of the electromagnetic drive unit 11 is determined using the current value, e.g., current I3 shown in FIG. 6, when first core 23 and second core 24 are separated from each other [i.e., release mechanism]. Daisuke also discloses the first arm portion 13 and the second arm portion 14 rotate against the biasing force of the braking member 15 in directions in which the end portions 13 a and 14 a move away from each other, when the attractive force becomes greater than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions approaching each other, and when the attractive force generated by the magnetic field inside the cylindrical hole 21a of the housing 21 becomes smaller than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions away from each other), the method comprising the steps of:
varying the electrical power supplied to the actuator of the release mechanism and measuring a release power value that, when exceeded, causes the braking element to switch between the braking configuration and the released configuration (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶22, 30-49, 53 & 74, discloses a rectified AC power supply is used, the current flowing through the coil 22 oscillates at a predetermined frequency. Daisuke further discloses electromagnetic drive unit 11 [i.e., electrical actuator], the first core 23 and second core 24, wherein the state of the electromagnetic drive unit 11 is determined using the current value, e.g., current I3 shown in FIG. 6, when first core 23 and second core 24 are separated from each other [i.e., release mechanism]. Daisuke also discloses the first arm portion 13 and the second arm portion 14 rotate against the biasing force of the braking member 15 in directions in which the end portions 13 a and 14 a move away from each other, when the attractive force becomes greater than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions approaching each other, and when the attractive force generated by the magnetic field inside the cylindrical hole 21a of the housing 21 becomes smaller than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions away from each other);
performing a comparison between the release power value and a predetermined reference power value (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶22, 30-49, 53, 66, 71 & 74, discloses the initial current storage unit 211 stores in advance the current value (hereinafter referred to as the "initial current value") before the diagnosis is performed, for example, when the electromagnetic brake device 10 is installed. Next, the current value measured by the current measuring device 201 is transmitted to the friction force estimator 204 via the signal acquiring device 202 and the filter processor 203. Daisuke further discloses the determiner 207 compares the current waveform of the initial current value with the currently measured current waveform after processing step S15, and determine whether the electromagnetic brake device 10 is normal or not); and
determining a current functional state of the brake based on a result of the performed comparison (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶30-34 & 71, discloses the determiner 207 compares the current waveform of the initial current value with the currently measured current waveform after processing step S15, and determine whether the electromagnetic brake device 10 is normal or not, wherein diagnosis unit 200 is provided which is used for comparing the power value to a reference value via the initial current storage unit 211 and a diagnosis on the normal/abnormal state of the brake is thus made).
As per claim 17, Daisuke discloses the method of claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated. Daisuke further discloses including determining the reference power value by at least one of:
before the elevator installation is constructed;
immediately before the elevator installation is put into operation;
specifically for the elevator installation;
by a technician on a site where the elevator installation is installed; and
as part of a teach-in operation of the elevator installation (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶22, 30-49, 53, 66, 71 & 74, discloses the initial current storage unit 211 stores in advance the current value (hereinafter referred to as the "initial current value") before the diagnosis is performed, for example, when the electromagnetic brake device 10 is installed. Next, the current value measured by the current measuring device 201 is transmitted to the friction force estimator 204 via the signal acquiring device 202 and the filter processor 203. Daisuke further discloses the determiner 207 compares the current waveform of the initial current value with the currently measured current waveform after processing step S15, and determine whether the electromagnetic brake device 10 is normal or not).
As per claim 18, Daisuke discloses the method of claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated. Daisuke further discloses wherein the reference power value is a measured power value, the measured power value being determined after construction of the elevator installation by varying the electrical power supplied to the actuator of the release mechanism and determining the measured power value as a power value that, when exceeded, causes the braking element to switch between the braking configuration and the released configuration (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶22, 30-49, 53, 66, 71 & 74, discloses the initial current storage unit 211 stores in advance the current value (hereinafter referred to as the "initial current value") before the diagnosis is performed, for example, when the electromagnetic brake device 10 is installed. Next, the current value measured by the current measuring device 201 is transmitted to the friction force estimator 204 via the signal acquiring device 202 and the filter processor 203. Daisuke further discloses the determiner 207 compares the current waveform of the initial current value with the currently measured current waveform after processing step S15, and determine whether the electromagnetic brake device 10 is normal or not. Daisuke further discloses a rectified AC power supply is used, the current flowing through the coil 22 oscillates at a predetermined frequency, wherein electromagnetic drive unit 11 [i.e., actuator], the first core 23 and second core 24, wherein the state of the electromagnetic drive unit 11 is determined using the current value, e.g., current I3 shown in FIG. 6, when first core 23 and second core 24 are separated from each other [i.e., released]. Daisuke also discloses the first arm portion 13 and the second arm portion 14 rotate against the biasing force of the braking member 15 in directions in which the end portions 13 a and 14 a move away from each other, when the attractive force becomes greater than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions approaching each other, and when the attractive force generated by the magnetic field inside the cylindrical hole 21a of the housing 21 becomes smaller than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions away from each other).
As per claim 19, Daisuke discloses the method of claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated. Daisuke further discloses including performing the comparison as a comparison between the release power value and a minimum permissible reference power value, and when the release power value is less than the minimum permissible reference power value, determining as the current functional state of the brake that the biasing force generated by the biasing mechanism is less than a minimum permissible biasing force (Daisuke, in at least Fig. 6 [reproduced here for convenience] and ¶¶5 & 72-74, discloses diagnosing conventional electromagnetic brake devices, it was necessary to set a wide range of thresholds for determining abnormalities Daisuke further discloses the range of threshold values for determining an abnormality when comparing current waveforms, wherein FIG. 6 is an explanatory diagram showing the relationship between the current waveform measured by the current measuring instrument 201 and the operation of the electromagnetic driving unit 11 ).
As per claim 20, Daisuke discloses the method of claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated. Daisuke further discloses including performing the comparison as comparison between the release power value and a maximum permissible reference power value, and when the release power value is greater than the maximum permissible reference power value, determining as the current functional state of the brake that the biasing force generated by the biasing mechanism is greater than a maximum permissible biasing force (Daisuke, in at least Fig. 6 [reproduced here for convenience] and ¶¶5 & 72-74, discloses diagnosing conventional electromagnetic brake devices, it was necessary to set a wide range of thresholds for determining abnormalities Daisuke further discloses the range of threshold values for determining an abnormality when comparing current waveforms, wherein FIG. 6 is an explanatory diagram showing the relationship between the current waveform measured by the current measuring instrument 201 and the operation of the electromagnetic driving unit 11 ).
As per claim 21, Daisuke discloses the method of claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated. Daisuke further discloses including initiating the method by an authorized technician during at least one of an installation, a commissioning and a maintenance of the elevator installation (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶22, 30-49, 53, 66, 71 & 74, discloses the initial current storage unit 211 stores in advance the current value (hereinafter referred to as the "initial current value") before the diagnosis is performed, for example, when the electromagnetic brake device 10 is installed. Next, the current value measured by the current measuring device 201 is transmitted to the friction force estimator 204 via the signal acquiring device 202 and the filter processor 203. Daisuke further discloses the determiner 207 compares the current waveform of the initial current value with the currently measured current waveform after processing step S15, and determine whether the electromagnetic brake device 10 is normal or not).
As per claim 22, Daisuke discloses the method of claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated. Daisuke further discloses including automatically repeating the method steps at predetermined time intervals (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶7, 22, 30-49, 53, 66, 71 & 74, discloses the current state acquisition unit acquires the state of the core relative to the housing of the electromagnetic drive unit at the time of diagnosis [implies predetermined time intervals], wherein the determiner determines whether the state of the electromagnetic drive unit is normal or not based on the information on the current state of the core acquired by the current state acquisition unit [implies automatically repeating the method steps]. Daisuke further discloses a rectified AC power supply is used, the current flowing through the coil 22 oscillates at a predetermined frequency, wherein the electromagnetic drive unit 11 [i.e., electrical actuator], the first core 23 and second core 24, wherein the state of the electromagnetic drive unit 11 is determined using the current value, e.g., current I3 shown in FIG. 6, when first core 23 and second core 24 are separated from each other [i.e., release mechanism]. Daisuke also discloses the first arm portion 13 and the second arm portion 14 rotate against the biasing force of the braking member 15 in directions in which the end portions 13 a and 14 a move away from each other, when the attractive force becomes greater than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions approaching each other, and when the attractive force generated by the magnetic field inside the cylindrical hole 21a of the housing 21 becomes smaller than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions away from each other).
As per claim 24, Daisuke discloses an elevator installation (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶30-53, 66-74 & 80, discloses elevator 1) comprising:
an elevator car;
a driving machine driving a traction sheave in rotation, wherein the traction sheave during the rotation displaces a cable-type suspension means holding the elevator car;
a brake having a stationary part and a rotatable part, the rotatable part being rotationally fixedly coupled to the traction sheave;
a brake monitoring device;
a braking mechanism arranged on the stationary part of the brake, the braking mechanism having a displaceable braking element, a biasing mechanism and a release mechanism;
wherein the braking element is displaceable between a braking configuration, in which the braking element frictionally interacts with the rotatable part of the brake, and a released configuration, in which the braking element does not frictionally interact with the rotatable part of the brake;
wherein the biasing mechanism mechanically biases the braking element with an elastic biasing force toward the braking configuration;
wherein the release mechanism has an electrical actuator that generates a force depending on an electrical power supplied to the actuator, the force acting on the braking element to counteract the elastic biasing force generated by the biasing mechanism; and
wherein the brake monitoring device is adapted to carry out or control the method according to Claim 16 (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶30-53, 66-74 & 80, discloses the elevator 1, and the hardware configuration of each part of Diagnostic Unit in Electromagnetic Brake Device 10. Then, Daisuke discloses the method of claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated).
As per claim 26, Daisuke discloses the elevator installation according to Claim 24, accordingly, the rejection of claim 24 above is incorporated.
Daisuke further discloses wherein the brake includes a brake contact switch that detects a switching of the braking element between the braking configuration and the released configuration (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶31 & 37-46, discloses the diagnosis unit 200 also has a position measuring device 209, wherein the position measuring device 209 measures the positions of the first core 23 and the second core 24 relative to the housing 21) .
As per claim 27, Daisuke discloses the elevator installation according to Claim 24, accordingly, the rejection of claim 24 above is incorporated. Daisuke further discloses wherein the actuator of the release mechanism includes an electromagnet that responds to the supplied electrical power to generate the force that acts on the braking element and counteracts the elastic biasing force generated by the biasing mechanism (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶22, 30-49, 53 & 74, discloses a rectified AC power supply is used, the current flowing through the coil 22 oscillates at a predetermined frequency. Daisuke further discloses electromagnetic drive unit 11 [i.e., electrical actuator], the first core 23 and second core 24, wherein the state of the electromagnetic drive unit 11 is determined using the current value, e.g., current I3 shown in FIG. 6, when first core 23 and second core 24 are separated from each other [i.e., release mechanism]. Daisuke also discloses the first arm portion 13 and the second arm portion 14 rotate against the biasing force of the braking member 15 in directions in which the end portions 13 a and 14 a move away from each other, when the attractive force becomes greater than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions approaching each other, and when the attractive force generated by the magnetic field inside the cylindrical hole 21a of the housing 21 becomes smaller than the biasing force of the braking member 15, the first core 23 and the second core 24 move in directions away from each other).
As per claim 28, Daisuke discloses a brake monitoring device for an elevator installation adapted to carry out or control the method according to Claim 16 (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶30-53, 66-74 & 80, discloses the elevator 1, and the hardware configuration of each part of Diagnostic Unit in Electromagnetic Brake Device 10. Then, Daisuke discloses the method of claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated).
As per claim 29, Daisuke discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program product stored thereon, the computer program product comprising a computer program including computer readable instructions that, when executed by a programmable brake monitoring device of an elevator installation perform the method according to Claim 16 (Daisuke, in at least Fig(s). 1-8 and ¶¶30-53, 66-74 & 80, discloses the elevator 1, and the hardware configuration of each part of Diagnostic Unit in Electromagnetic Brake Device 10. Then, Daisuke discloses the method of claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated).
As per claim 30, Cancelled
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 23 & 25 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Daisuke (JP-2016223615-A) in view of PG Pub No. US-2020/0055693-A1 to Nagarajan et al. (hereinafter “Nagarajan”)
As per claim 23, Daisuke discloses the method of claim 16, accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 above is incorporated. Daisuke is silent on all claim 23 limitations, however, Nagarajan in at least ¶¶5-9 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of elevator safety control systems, teaches wherein the brake has two braking mechanisms that can be activated separately from one another, and wherein the varying the electrical power supplied to the actuator of the release mechanism is performed on each of the two braking mechanisms at different times (Nagarajan, in at least ¶¶5-9, discloses control system includes a safety controller that operates the primary and secondary brakes in accordance with elevator car condition data and the safety signal, wherein the safety controller instructs the power section during an emergency incident in accordance with the calculations of the calculation unit, the safety signal and the elevator system information to operate the driving machine and the braking assembly as the primary or the secondary brake).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Daisuke in view of Nagarajan with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - elevator safety control systems - and the combination would provide an elevator brakes perform the comfort immediate stop during an emergency situation or power outage (see at least Nagarajan’s ¶¶1-9).
As per claim 25, Daisuke discloses the elevator installation according to Claim 24, accordingly, the rejection of claim 24 above is incorporated.
Daisuke is silent on all claim 23 limitations, however, Nagarajan in at least ¶¶5-9 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of elevator safety control systems, teaches wherein the brake has two braking mechanisms that can be activated separately from one another (Nagarajan, in at least ¶¶5-9, discloses control system includes a safety controller that operates the primary and secondary brakes in accordance with elevator car condition data and the safety signal, wherein the safety controller instructs the power section during an emergency incident in accordance with the calculations of the calculation unit, the safety signal and the elevator system information to operate the driving machine and the braking assembly as the primary or the secondary brake).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Daisuke in view of Nagarajan with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - elevator safety control systems - and the combination would provide an elevator brakes perform the comfort immediate stop during an emergency situation or power outage (see at least Nagarajan’s ¶¶1-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached previously mailed PTO-892 form.
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 extension fee 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 Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661