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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/27/2026 has been entered.
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 and further in a view of Alkan et al. US 2020/0346892 A1.
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 [0035, 0041, 0055, 0056] (fig. 1 clearly shows multiple counterweights (item 2).
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.
A combination of TAKAGI and Kugiya does not disclose but Alkan et al. disclose wherein the movable bodies include traveling cables (fig. 2, item 22) corresponding to the second car (item 20) [0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include traveling cables in the second car as taught by Alkan in TAKAGI’s teaching to sense the position of an elevator car within an elevator system (Alkan’s paragraph 0002). A PHOSITA would easily modify one of the cars in TAKAGI’s teachings to accommodate traveling cables taught by Alkan for added benefit.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights