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 .
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) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio Da Silva (WO 2021/121904) and further in view of Talonen et al (PGPUB 2021/0371241).
With respect to claim 1, Antonio Da Silva teaches an elevator car comprising: at least one barrier (fig. 1, 1) extending from an external surface (fig. 1, 2) of the elevator car (fig. 1, 11); and
a switch (page 5, line 26; safety switch) connectable in series with a safety circuit (page 5, line 26 – page 6, line 6; safety circuit);
wherein the at least one barrier is configured to be displaced from a first position to a second position (page 6, lines 8-13) upon contact with an object (page 8, lines 1-5; fig. 3, inspector hands pivot balustrade),
such that the displacement to the second position opens the switch to initiate an emergency stop (page 6, lines 8-13) procedure of the elevator car.
Antonitio Da Silva does not explicitly teach a safety chain circuit.
Talonen teaches a safety chain circuit (paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a safety chain into the elevator safety circuit of Antonio Da Silva, as it would have yielded the predictable results, of activating the safety circuit.
With respect to claim 2, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein the at least one barrier is configured to extend a predetermined distance (fig. 1, 1; extends handrail distance from top of elevator 2) from the external surface of the elevator car, and wherein the predetermined distance includes a designated height (page 009; lines 26-31) of a safety space.
Antonio Da Silva does not explicitly teach additional height which corresponds to a stopping distance of the elevator car during the emergency stop procedure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for the braking distance be less than guardrail height, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 3, Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein the at least one barrier comprises a flexible portion, configured to flex upon contact with an object.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for the barrier to have flexible portion, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 4, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein the at least one barrier further comprises a rigid portion (page 8, lines 1-5; fig. 3, inspector hands pivot balustrade), extending substantially perpendicular from the external surface of the elevator car (fig. 1, 1 is perpedicular to surface of 2).
Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein the flexible portion extends from the rigid portion and is configured to be displaced relative to the rigid portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for the barrier to have flexible portion extended from rigid portion, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 5, Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein the flexible portion is configured to flex and/or rotate relative to the rigid portion to thereby move to the second position upon contact with an object.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for the barrier to have flexible portion, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 6, Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein the flexible portion is configured to extend from the rigid portion by an additional distance corresponding to a stopping distance of the elevator car during the emergency stop procedure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for the braking distance be less than guardrail height, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 7, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein at least a portion of the at least one barrier is configured to rotate between the first position and the second position (page 6, lines 8-13).
With respect to claim 8, Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein an angle of rotation between the first position and the second position is at least 3 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have barrier angle be at least 3 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 9, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein said at least a portion of the at least one barrier is configured to rotate beyond the second position (page 6, lines 8-13).
With respect to claim 10, Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein said at least a portion of the at least one barrier is a flexible portion configured to flex under an applied force after rotating to the second position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for the barrier to have flexible portion, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 11, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein an axis of rotation (fig. 1, 28; joint acts as axis to pivot) of said at least a portion of the at least one barrier is between the at least one barrier (fig. 1, 1) and the external surface (fig. 1, 2) of the elevator car.
With respect to claim 12, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein the at least one barrier comprises a barrier (fig. 1, 1) extending from an external lower surface (fig. 1, 2) of the elevator car.
With respect to claim 13, Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein the barrier extending from the external lower surface of the elevator car is flexible and is configured to flex and/or rotate between the first position and the second position upon contact with an object to thereby open the switch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for the barrier to have flexible portion, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 14, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein the at least one barrier comprises a barrier (fig. 1, 1) extending from an external upper surface (fig. 1, 2) of the elevator car.
With respect to claim 15, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein the switch comprises a latching contact configured to latch open and maintain the open position when (page 6, lines 1-6; switched/latch is opened) the at least one barrier is displaced to the second position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICK DAVID GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-8395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri_8-5pm.
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.
/ERICK D GLASS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846