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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Takagi does not disclose or suggest monitoring a traveling cable to determine approach of the traveling cable to an elevator car. Therefore, it is believed that Takagi does not disclose or suggest the amended features of Claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Takagi discloses that each counterweight attaches to corresponding car via a traveling cable (item 5) and the position of the weight 2 and the cable are detected accordingly [0041]
Takagi describes an elevator system in which each elevator car has its own
hoistway (Takagi, Fig. 1). Thus, the principle of operation of the system in Takagi relies on the particular configuration of its elevators, namely that each has its own hoistway. Kugiya is asserted to describe an elevator system in which the elevator cars share a same hoistway. Thus, combining Takagi with Kugiya would result in a change of principle of operation of Takagi since the combination requires Takagi to monitor elevator cars that share a hoistway which is different from the original operation of the system in Takagi, which monitors elevators that each has their own hoistway. Such a change in principle of operation cannot form the basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 (MPEP 2143).
The examiner respectfully disagrees there is nothing in Takagi’s teaching which teaches away from vertical stacking and POSITA would have recognized interchangeable layouts to share the same hoistway which enhances simple installation of the elevators. As such, modifying shaft arrangement would have been a predictable varaiation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAGI JPH11199151A (Part of IDS) in a view of Kugiya et al. US 9,394,139 B2.
Regarding claim 5, TAKAGI discloses
An elevator safety monitoring device (Items 9 and 12-14) comprising processing circuitry judge whether movable bodies (Item 2) of an elevator system (Fig. 1) approaches a first car (item 1) or a second car (item 1) (there are multiple item 1) when a maintenance person is riding on a riding portion on one of the first car and the second car in the elevator system to perform safety control for the elevator system so as to secure safety of the maintenance person when the processing circuitry judges that at least one of the movable bodies approaches one of the first car and the second car, wherein the movable bodies include counterweights respectively corresponding to the first car and the second car and a traveling cable [0035, 0041, 0055, 0056] (fig. 1 clearly shows multiple counterweights (item 2). Each counterweight attaches to corresponding car via a traveling cable (item 5) and the position of the weight 2 and the cable are detected accordingly).
TAKAGI does not explicitly say but Kugiya discloses in which the first car (Fig. 1, item 2) and the second car (Item 4) run while being aligned in a vertical direction (Column 3, lines 35-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to run both the cars while aligning in a vertical direction as taught by Kugiya in TAKAGI’s teaching so that both the cars share the same hoistway which enhances simple installation of the elevators.
Regarding claim 6, TAKAGI discloses
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to judge whether a maintenance person is riding on the riding portion on one of the first car and the second car, and wherein in a case where the processing circuitry judges that no maintenance person is riding on the riding portion on one of the first car and the second car, the processing circuitry is configured not to perform the safety control for the elevator system [0055] (It should be noted that a detection signal is only detecting when the worker is performing maintenance work).
Regarding claim 7, TAKAGI discloses
as the safety control, the processing circuitry is configured to cause a notification device provided to the riding portion on at least one of the first car and the second car to notify approach of at least one of the movable bodies [0055, 0056].
Regarding claim 8, TAKAGI discloses
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to judge whether at least one of the movable bodies approaches one of the first car and the second car based on whether a distance between one of the first car and the second car and the at least one of movable bodies, which is represented based on travel of the elevator system, a position of the first car, a position of the second car, and heights of the counterweights, is shorter than an approach judgment reference [0055, 0056].
Regarding claim 9, TAKAGI discloses
wherein as the safety control, the processing circuitry is configured to cause at least one of the first car and the second car to temporarily stop or to temporarily decelerate [0053].
Regarding claim 10, Kugiya discloses wherein as the safety control, the processing circuitry is configured to cause one of the first car and the second car to temporarily stop or to temporarily decelerate and causes another of the first car and the second car to maintain a normal operation (Column 5, lines 14-29. It should be noted that only the trailing car is stopped. The movement of a leading car to be continued).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to o cause one of the first car and the second car to temporarily stop or to temporarily decelerate and causes another of the first car and the second car to maintain a normal operation as taught by Kugiya in TAKAGI’s teaching to provide a multi-car elevator that can stop a trailing car so as to ensure a safe distance from a leading car more reliably when the leading car
stops suddenly. (See column 1, lines 43-47)
Regarding claim 11, TAKAGI discloses
wherein as the safety control, the processing circuitry is configured to cause another of the first car and the second car to maintain a decelerated operation [0053].
Regarding claim 12, TAKAGI and Kugiya discloses wherein the first elevator car and the second elevator car share a same hoistway (Kugiya’s column 3, lines 35-53).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, Jessica Han can be reached at 5712722078. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896