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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being taught by Antonio Da Silva et al (WO 2021/121904).
With respect to claim 1, Antonio Da Silva teaches an elevator safety system comprising:
a barrier (fig. 1, 1) for installation on an external upper surface (fig. 1, 2) of an elevator car (fig. 1, 11); and
a sensor (page 5, line 26; sensor), wherein the sensor is configured to detect a change in the barrier (page 5, lines 26-31; detects balustrade position),
wherein the system is configured to produce a safety signal (page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 13; sensor integrated into safety circuit/signals normal or stop operation) when a change in the barrier is detected by the sensor.
With respect to claim 2, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein the sensor is configured to detect a movement of at least part (page 5, lines 26-31; detects balustrade position) of the barrier.
With respect to claim 5, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein the sensor comprises a switch (page 5, lines 26), configured to switch from (page 6, lines 8-13; detects position, safety switch closed/open), a first state (closed) to a second state (open) when the at least part of the barrier has moved from a first position to a second position.
With respect to claim 6, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein the at least part (fig. 2) of the barrier is movable relative to another part of the barrier, wherein the switch is mounted to the other part of the barrier and is configured to switch from the first state to the second state (page 6, lines 8-13; detects position, safety switch closed/open) when the at least part of the barrier is moved into contact with the switch.
With respect to claim 11, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein the at least part of the barrier comprises a rail (fig. 1, 5) configured to be spaced from the external upper surface of the elevator car when installed thereon.
With respect to claim 12, Antonio Da Silva teaches elevator system comprising:
a hoistway (fig. 1, 13); an elevator car (fig. 1, 11); and
an elevator safety system (page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 6; safety circuit) as claimed in claim 1.
With respect to claim 13, Antonio Da Silva teaches wherein the elevator system further comprises an elevator controller (page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 13; elevator control device) configured to receive the safety signal from the sensor;
wherein, upon receiving the safety signal from the sensor, the elevator controller is configured to (page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 13; activates brake or prevents drive) implement a safety response.
With respect to claim 15, Antonio Da Silva teaches a method of operating an elevator safety system comprising:
detecting, by at least one sensor (page 5, line 26; sensor detects),
a change in a barrier (page 5, lines 26-31; detects balustrade position) of the elevator safety system; and
producing, from the at least one sensor, a safety signal (page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 13; sensor integrated into safety circuit/signals normal or stop operation) indicating the change.
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) 3, 4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio Da Silva et al (WO 2021/121904).
With respect to claim 3, Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein the sensor comprises a light beam emitter (322) and a light beam receiver (326).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention substitute a light beam emitter/receiver sensor for sensor of Antonio Da Silva as it would have yielded predictable results of barrier position.
With respect to claim 4, Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein the sensor is configured such that light emitted from the light beam emitter is not received by the light beam receiver when the at least part of the barrier is in a first position but is received by the light beam receiver when the at least part of the barrier has moved to a second position, and wherein the safety signal is produced when the light is received by the light beam receiver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention substitute a light beam emitter/receiver sensor for sensor of Antonio Da Silva as it would have yielded predictable results of barrier position.
With respect to claim 7, Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein the at least part of the barrier is resiliently biased away from the other part of the barrier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for barrier to be biased, 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 8, Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein the sensor is configured to detect a change in the load applied to at least part of the barrier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor to detect load change, 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 9, Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein the sensor comprises a load cell mounted to the at least part of the barrier; and / or wherein the sensor comprises a piezoelectric sensor mounted to the at least part of the barrier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor to be a piezoelectric sensor, 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 10, Antonio Da Silva does not teach wherein the sensor is configured to detect a change in resistance in at least part of the barrier.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for sensor to detect resistance change, 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.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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