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 02/13/2026 for application number 17/973,671 filed on 10/26/2022, in which claims 1-13 were originally presented for examination. Claims 1, 10 & 13 are currently amended, and claims 3 & 12 have been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 4-11 & 13 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22154014.9, filed on 01/28/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2022 has 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 02/13/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Interpretation under 35 USC §112(f): The interpretation of claims under 35 USC §112(f), are maintained, as amended claim(s) filed on 02/13/2026 have failed to overcome the Claim Interpretation under §112(f) recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/20/2025.
Regarding the Claim Objections: The claim objection(s) is/are withdrawn, as the amended claims filed on 02/13/2026 have properly addressed the claims informality objections recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/20/2025.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1): Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims 1-4 & 6-13 as being clearly anticipated by the prior art of Kugiya (WO-2010/150644-A1) have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“Kugiya does not disclose a designated unlocking zone and a designated movement zone ... Kugiya only discloses a single door zone.”
(see Remarks page 5; emphasis added)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Kugiya’s safety controller 24 detects the opening of the door at a zone outside the landing position [i.e., a designated movement zone (250)], then further discloses door zone [i.e., a designated unlocking zone (260)] that is different than the zone outside the landing position.
Applicant asserts that:
“the safety controller is configured to release the brake, based on the elevator car position, without requiring any further safety checks. Kugiya instead discloses "Only when the safety condition can be confirmed ... the output of the brake operation command is stopped.”
(see Remarks pages 5-6; emphasis added)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant's invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., without requiring any further safety checks) 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). In addition, Examiner notes that Kugiya discloses that the output of the brake operation command is stopped by the function of the safety controller 24 [i.e., without requiring any further safety checks and/or without an external intervention].
Applicant asserts that:
“Kugiya does not disclose the same safety controller subsequently permitting brake release based on a positional comparison to an unlocking zone.”
(see Remarks page 6; emphasis added)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Kugiya discloses that the output of the brake operation command is stopped by the function of the safety controller 24.
Applicant asserts that:
“Kugiya does not correspond to the claimed “wherein, when the safety controller (232) determines that the position of the stopped elevator car is within the designated unlocking zone (260) of the given landing, the brake (208) is allowed to be released by the safety controller (232)”
(see Remarks page 6; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are all focusing on new limitations added to the amended base claim(s) 1 and 10 apparently to overcome the current anticipation rejections under §102(a)(1), as recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/20/2025. Those arguments are rendered moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection outlined below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, i.e., Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new limitation(s) rejection(s) outlined below. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new rejection outlined below.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
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 1, 2, 4, 6-11 & 13 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Patent Publication No. WO-2010/150644-A1 by Kugiya et al. (hereinafter “Kugiya”), which is found in the IDS submitted on 12/19/2022
The rejections below are based on the machine translation of the Kugiya’s reference a copy of which is attached to this Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
As per claim 1, An elevator system (201) (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1 [reproduced here for convenience], and ¶¶9-33, discloses elevator safety controller/ system) comprising:
an elevator car (203) arranged to move within an elevator shaft (117) (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-18, discloses Car 1 within a hoistway);
an elevator drive (211) including a brake (208) (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-18, discloses hoisting machine 4 and hoisting machine break 5);
an elevator controller (230) configured to control the elevator drive (211) so as to control the movement of the elevator car (203) between a plurality of landings (125) in the elevator shaft (117) (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-20, discloses operation control device 23 controls the operation of the car 1 based on a signal from the detector group between the landing on each floor);
a position reference system (240) configured to measure a position of the elevator car (203) within the elevator shaft (117) (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-18, discloses plurality of position detection switches 19a and 19b for detecting the position of the car 1 are provided at predetermined positions in the hoistway);
PNG
media_image1.png
790
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kugiya’s Fig. 1 (emphasis added)
a safety controller (232) connected to the position reference system (240) to receive car position information and configured to selectively apply the brake (208) of the elevator drive (211) so as to stop the elevator car (203) (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-21, discloses safety controller 24, wherein the car 1 is shifted to a safe state according to the content of the abnormality, e.g., if an abnormality is detected while the car 1 is traveling, a brake operation command is output to the hoisting machine brake 5 and the car 1 is suddenly stopped),
wherein the safety controller (232) is configured to monitor the received car position information at least when the elevator car (203) is moving in a designated unlocking zone (260) of a given landing (125) with an elevator car door open and to apply the brake (208) of the elevator drive (211) upon determining from the received car position information that the position of the elevator car (203) is outside a designated movement zone (250) of the given landing (125) (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-33, discloses the safety controller 24 detects an abnormality in the car 1 when it detects the opening of the door outside [i.e., a designated movement zone (250)] the landing position (door zone [i.e., a designated unlocking zone (260)]), i.e., the safety controller 24 detects a state in which at least one of the car door and the landing door is open although the car 1 has not reached the landing position (door zone), and outputs a brake operation command), and
PNG
media_image2.png
436
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kugiya’s Fig. 3 (emphasis added)
wherein the safety controller (232) is further configured to monitor the received car position information after the brake (208) has been applied to stop the elevator car (203) with an elevator car door open and to compare the position of the stopped elevator car to the designated unlocking zone (260) of the given landing (125) (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-33, discloses the safety controller 24 detects that the car 1 is out of the landing position while at least one of the car door and the landing door is open, and outputs a brake operation command);
wherein, when the safety controller (232) determines that the position of the stopped elevator car is within the designated unlocking zone (260) of the given landing, the brake (208) is allowed to be released by the safety controller (232) (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-33, discloses the operation control device 23 opens and closes the car door and the landing door when it detects that the car 1 has stopped at the target landing position using signals from the hoisting machine encoder 6 and the floor alignment sensor 22. At this time, the operation control device 23 detects the open/closed states of the car door and the landing door using signals from the car door switch 21 and the landing door switch. Further, the operation control device 23 detects from the signal from the floor alignment sensor 22 that the car 1 is at the landing position and detects from the signal from the hoisting machine encoder 6 that the speed of the car 1 is sufficiently low. Only when it does, door opening control to open the car door and the landing door is performed. Furthermore, the operation control device 23 corrects the position information of the car 1 by using signals from the position detection switches 19a and 19b. In addition, the operation control device 23 detects that the car 1 has passed through the terminal floor and traveled further toward the terminal using signals from the limit switches 20a and 20b. The operation control device 23 that has detected overshoot does not issue a control command other than traveling back to the intermediate floor until [i.e., brake is allowed to be released] it is detected by the signals of the limit switches 20a and 20b that the car 1 has escaped from the end portion. Kugiya further discloses the safety controller 24 maintains the output of the brake operation command after outputting the brake operation command once. Then, only when the safety state [i.e., determines that the position of the stopped elevator car is within the designated unlocking zone (260) of the given landing] can be confirmed by the maintenance staff or the function of the safety controller 24, the output of the brake operation command is stopped [i.e., brake is allowed to be released] by the operation of the maintenance staff or the function of the safety controller 24).
As per claim 2, Kugiya discloses the elevator system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kugiya further discloses wherein the safety controller (232) is further configured to make one or more decisions relating to a safety status after the elevator car (203) has left the designated movement zone (250) (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-33, discloses the safety controller 24 detects a state in which at least one of the car door and the landing door is open even though the car 1 is traveling, and outputs a brake operation command).
As per claim 3, Cancelled
As per claim 4, Kugiya discloses the elevator system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kugiya further discloses wherein, when the safety controller (232) determines that the position of the stopped elevator car is outside the designated unlocking zone (260) of the given landing, the brake (208) can only be released by an external intervention to reset the safety controller (232) (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-33, discloses the safety controller 24 maintains the output of the brake operation command after outputting the brake operation command once. Then, only when the safety state can be confirmed by the maintenance staff or the function of the safety controller 24, the output of the brake operation command is stopped by the operation of the maintenance staff [i.e., an external intervention] or the function of the safety controller 24).
As per claim 6, Kugiya discloses the elevator system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kugiya further discloses wherein the safety controller (232) is configured to monitor the received car position information during an elevator car relevelling operation (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-33, discloses the operation control device 23 opens and closes the car door and the landing door when it detects that the car 1 has stopped at the target landing position using signals from the hoisting machine encoder 6 and the floor alignment sensor 22. At this time, the operation control device 23 detects the open/closed states of the car door and the landing door using signals from the car door switch 21 and the landing door switch. Further, the operation control device 23 detects from the signal from the floor alignment sensor 22 that the car 1 is at the landing position and detects from the signal from the hoisting machine encoder 6 that the speed of the car 1 is sufficiently low. Only when it does, door opening control to open the car door and the landing door is performed. Further, the safety controller 24 determines whether or not the car 1 is at the landing position using a signal from the floor alignment sensor. Furthermore, the operation control device 23 corrects the position information of the car 1 by using signals from the position detection switches 19a and 19b. In addition, the operation control device 23 detects that the car 1 has passed through the terminal floor and traveled further toward the terminal using signals from the limit switches 20a and 20b. The operation control device 23 that has detected overshoot does not issue a control command other than traveling back to the intermediate floor until [i.e., brake is allowed to be released] it is detected by the signals of the limit switches 20a and 20b that the car 1 has escaped from the end portion. Kugiya further discloses the safety controller 24 maintains the output of the brake operation command after outputting the brake operation command once. Then, only when the safety state can be confirmed by the maintenance staff or the function of the safety controller 24, the output of the brake operation command is stopped [i.e., brake is allowed to be released] by the operation of the maintenance staff or the function of the safety controller 24).
As per claim 7, Kugiya discloses the elevator system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kugiya further discloses wherein the position reference system (240) is configured to measure a relative position of the elevator car (203) from the given landing (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-33, discloses plurality of position detection switches 19a and 19b for detecting the position of the car 1 are provided at predetermined positions in the hoistway, wherein the operation control device 23 opens and closes the car door and the landing door when it detects that the car 1 has stopped at the target landing position using signals from the hoisting machine encoder 6 and the floor alignment sensor 22).
As per claim 8, Kugiya discloses the elevator system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kugiya further discloses wherein the position reference system (240) is configured to continuously measure an absolute position of the elevator car within the elevator shaft (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-33, discloses plurality of position detection switches 19a and 19b for detecting the position of the car 1 are provided at predetermined positions in the hoistway, wherein the hoistway is provided with a plurality of floor matching sensors 22 for detecting that the car 1 is located at a position (door zone) where the passenger can safely enter and exit the car 1).
As per claim 9, Kugiya discloses the elevator system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kugiya further discloses wherein the safety controller (232) is connected to a plurality of safety devices (234) in a safety chain (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-33, discloses he suspension means 3 includes a plurality of ropes (traction ropes) or belt, wherein the governor rope 17 is connected to an operation lever of an emergency stop device mounted on the car 1).
As per claim 3, Cancelled
As per claims 10, 11 & 13, the claims are directed towards method(s) of monitoring an elevator car that recite(s) similar limitations performed by the system(s) of claims 1, 2 & 4. The cited portions of Kugiya used in the rejection of claims 1, 2 & 4 disclose the same methods’ steps of claims 10, 11 & 13. Therefore, claims 10, 11 & 13 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 1, 2 & 4 as outlined above.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Kugiya (WO-2010/150644-A1), which is found in the IDS submitted on 12/19/2022
The rejections below are based on the machine translation of the Kugiya’s reference a copy of which is attached to this Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
As per claim 5, Kugiya discloses the elevator system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Kugiya further discloses wherein the designated movement zone (250) of the given landing (125) (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-33, discloses landing position on each floor) landing (Kugiya, in at least Fig. 1, and ¶¶9-33, discloses “door zone”, wherein the safety controller 24 detects an abnormality in the car 1 when it detects the opening of the door outside the landing position (door zone), i.e., the safety controller 24 detects a state in which at least one of the car door and the landing door is open although the car 1 has not reached the landing position (door zone), and outputs a brake operation command), but is silent on the designated movement zone (250) is smaller than the designated unlocking zone (260).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice smaller designated movement zone than designated unlocking zone, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that relative size between the said zones solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with same or larger relative zone sizes. Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, See MPEP §2144.05
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See 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