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 08/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-17 are still pending.
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 1-3 and 6-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monzon et al. US 2011/0094832 A1 (IDS supplied prior art) in a view of Leone et al. US 5,025,895.
Regarding claim 1, Monzon et al. disclose
An elevator system (Fig. 2b), comprising: at least one refuge space (top of the car); and at least one light curtain (items 10 and 12) [0022]; wherein the at least one light curtain is configured to: detect at least one object in the at least one refuge space [0007, 0021, 0022]; and produce at least one safety signal (via emitters) indicating the presence of the at least one object in the at least one refuge space [0022] (claims 1 and 2 on page 2);
Monzon does not disclose but Leone et al. disclose wherein the elevator system (fig. 3, item 30) is configured to produce the at least one safety signal (intrusion) only when the at least one object has been consistently detected for a predetermined period of time (certain elapsed time) (column 1, lines 60-68, column 3, lines 1-67, column 4, lines 1-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Monzon’s elevator system to include functionality of detecting for a predetermined period of time as taught by Leone in order to avoid false warning of any entry onto an elevator cab roof (Leone’s column 1, lines 50-57)
Regarding claim 2, Monzon et al. disclose
wherein the at least one refuge space comprises a refuge space on the top of the elevator car; and/or wherein the at least one refuge space comprises a refuge space in the elevator pit [0022].
Regarding claim 3, Monzon et al. disclose
, wherein the elevator system comprises an elevator car (item 2) [0018] having a crosshead; and wherein the at least one light curtain comprises a light curtain positioned on the crosshead (fig. 2 shows a crosshead with a light curtain).
Regarding claim 6, Monzon et al. disclose
, wherein the at least one light curtain is arranged to project its curtain substantially horizontally [0021].
Regarding claim 7, Monzon et al. disclose
, wherein the at least one light curtain comprises a first light curtain (item 10) and a second light curtain (item 12) [0021].
Regarding claim 8, Monzon et al. disclose
, wherein the first light curtain and the second light curtain are arranged to point in different directions (different angles); and/or wherein the first light curtain and the second light curtain are arranged at different heights [0021].
Regarding claim 9, Monzon et al. disclose
, wherein the first light curtain and the second light curtain are arranged to overlap above at least a portion of the bottom of the refuge space (fig. 2b shows items 10 and 12 each covers a portion of the bottom while viewing from the top).
Regarding claim 10, Monzon et al. disclose
, wherein the elevator system further comprises an elevator controller [0002], configured to receive the at least one safety signal from the at least one light curtain; wherein, upon receiving the at least one safety signal from the at least one light curtain), the elevator controller is configured to implement a safety response [0021, 0022].
Regarding claim 11, Monzon et al. disclose
, wherein the safety response comprises one or more of: an emergency stop; moving an elevator car at a reduced speed (the brake will be applied); operating the elevator system in a pre-inspection operational mode; operating the elevator system in an inspection mode; illuminating the at least one refuge space; and sending a signal to a communications center or a building manager [0021, 0022].
Regarding claim 12, Monzon et al. disclose
, wherein the elevator controller is configured to operate the elevator system in a post-inspection mode when the at least one safety signal is no longer received [0020].
Regarding claim 13, Monzon et al. disclose
, wherein the elevator system further comprises a safety chain (Infrared beam) configured to receive the at least one safety signal from the at least one light curtain); wherein, upon receiving the at least one safety signal from the at least one light curtain, the safety chain is broken [0022].
Regarding claim 15, a combination of Monzon and Leone disclose
A method of detecting objects in an elevator system comprising: detecting, by at least one light curtain, at least one object in at least one refuge space of the elevator system; producing, from the at least one light curtain, at least one safety signal indicating the presence of the at least one object in the at least one refuge space; ;wherein producing the at least one safety signal comprises producing the at least one safety signal only when the at least one object has been consistently detected for a predetermined period of time (see claim 1 rejection for details).
Regarding claim 4, a combination of Monzon and Leone does not disclose wherein the at least one light curtain is located at least 20 cm above the bottom of the refuge space, optionally at least 30 cm above the bottom of the refuge space, optionally at least 40 cm above the bottom of the refuge space. However, Monzon’s fig. 2b shows the light curtain at a certain distance above the bottom of the car. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the light curtain at least 30 cm above the bottom to achieve passenger safety.
Regarding claim 5, Monzon does not disclose, wherein the at least one light curtain has a curtain width of at least 20 cm, optionally at least 40 cm, optionally at least 60 cm. However, fig. 2b shows the light curtain at a certain width. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least 20 cm of a curtain width to get a reliable obstruction detection.
Regarding claim 17, Monzon et al. disclose
wherein the at least one safety signal includes information identifying one or more of: a location of the elevator system, a location of the at least one light curtain, a location of an elevator car, a number of detected objects, a size of the at least one object, a location of the at least one object in the at least one refuge space [0022] (person on a top of the car), or a status of the elevator car.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monzon et al. US 2011/0094832 A1 (IDS supplied prior art) in a view of Leone et al. US 5,025,895 and further in a view of SIKONEN et al. US 2019/0152740 A1.
Regarding claim 16, a combination of Monzon and Leone does not disclose but SHIKONEN et al. disclose , wherein the at least one light curtain is configured to determine a size or dimension (height) of the at least one object based on an amount or proportion of received light obstructed by the at least one object and/or a number or proportion of beams of light obstructed by the at least one object [0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Monzon’s elevator system to determine a size or dimension using light obstructed by the at least one object as taught by SHIKONEN to calculate the number passengers passing by.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 that Leone uses a delay-on-break latch to maintain an already-generated detection condition after the object has been detected, and even after the object has left the detection zone. That is materially different from the claimed requirement that the safety signal be produced only after the object has been consistently detected for a predetermined period of time and further argues that in Applicant's claimed system, the predetermined period is used as a consistency check before the safety signal is produced, thereby avoiding false alarms from brief or transient obstructions. In Leone, the timer preserves the alarm or safety condition after detection has occurred. Leone therefore teaches post-detection latching, not pre-signal consistent detection. A system that continues an alarm for a predetermined time after detection does not teach or suggest a system that refrains from producing the safety signal until a predetermined period of consistent detection has first been satisfied.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As taught by Leone, the delay-on-make timer relay (R2) provides a predetermined elapsed time before the detected condition is transmitted. This delay serves to prevent false warnings by allowing the detected condition to persist for the specified period. Although the detection itself occurs immediately (person entering upon the shaft-side roof of the elevator cab), the detected condition is not transmitted immediately, which is intentionally delayed by the delay-on- make timer relay (R2). Therefore, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the proposed combination also lacks the required articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. The Office Action states that it would have been obvious to modify Monzon with Leone "in order to avoid false warning of any entry onto an elevator cab roof." But that statement does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Monzon's immediate detection-and-braking architecture to include the specific claimed pre-signal consistency gate. At most, Leone shows a different solution to a different timing problem.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Leone clearly mentions that employing a delay-on-make timer relay, one could avoid false detections which also prevents false warning by introducing a time delay.
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, Eduardo 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
