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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 9, neither “a laser projector” nor a “light projector” is commonly known to be a “sensor.” “The laser” is not positively recited and lacks antecedent basis. Correction is required.
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)(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.
(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) 1-5,11,14,15,19 is/are rejected (to the extent understood) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully met by Studer et al (WO-2017162552A1).
Regarding Claims 1,14 Studer discloses an elevator system, comprising:
a hoistway 7;
an elevator car 3 in the hoistway 7;
sensors 23,25,27,57 in the hoistway 7 operationally coupled to the elevator car 3 and configured to capture sensor data indicative of a person 31,33 being in the hoistway 7, and a processor 39 configured to determine from the sensor data that the person 31 is in the hoistway 7; and
wherein the elevator car 3 is configured to reduce speed or stop when the processor determines the person is in the hoistway (Abstract).
Regarding Claims 2,15, Studer discloses an elevator controller 37 operationally coupled to the elevator car 3 and communicatively coupled to the sensors 23,25,27,57.
Regarding Claim 3, Studer discloses the processor is configured to transmit an alert when the sensor data is indicative of the person in the hoistway (“warning signals can be output to the person”).
Regarding Claim 4, Studer discloses sensors located at a top of the elevator car 23, a bottom of the elevator car 25, a top of the hoistway, within a hoistway pit 27, and on or adjacent to a ladder 35 of the hoistway pit (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Studer discloses the sensors are cameras, LIDAR sensors, “infrared sensor, ultrasonic sensor, a radar sensor, a laser distance sensor.”
Regarding Claim 11, Studer discloses the elevator controller 37 is configured to operate in a normal mode, and the elevator controller stops the elevator car upon rendering a determination that the person is in the hoistway (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 19, Studer discloses determining, by the elevator controller 37, that the elevator controller 37 is in a normal run mode; and permitting, by the elevator controller 37, the elevator car 3 to run only a determination is rendered that the person is not detected within the hoistway (no collision, Abstract).
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) 6,7,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studer in view of Mangini et al (USPGP 2012018256).
Regarding Claim 6, Studer (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 2 above) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach that the processor is configured to compare captured sensor data from sensors with previously obtained data representing the hoistway without a person therein to determine whether the person is within the hoistway.
Mangini discloses a system for detection of persons in a hoistway, wherein the processor is configured to compare captured sensor data from sensors 20-28 with previously obtained data representing the hoistway without the person therein to determine whether the person is within the hoistway (calibration scan, para. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the teachings of Studer with those of Mangini, so as to increase the reliability of the safety system, as is known in the art to be desirable, and Studer and Mangini use infrared sensors.
Regarding Claim 7, Studer discloses using three dimensional sensors.
Regarding Claim 10, Mangini discloses (Fig. 3A) the sensors are automatically actuated 54 when the elevator car is controlled to move 52.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studer in view of Jussila et al (WO 2023066459 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Studer (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 2 above) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach wherein the sensors are LIDAR sensors located at or more of the top of the elevator car and within a hoistway pit and are configured to generate a sensing curtain to determine a presence of the person.
Jussila discloses a safety system for an elevator which comprises LIDAR sensors (page 9 line 35) located at or more of the top 114 of the elevator car 102 and within a hoistway 104 pit, and are configured to generate a sensing curtain (page 9 line 34) to determine a presence of a person.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the teachings of Studer with those of Jussila, so as to take advantage of the improved sensing of LIDAR, as is known in the art to be desirable.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studer in view of Oggianu et al (USPGP 2020039784).
Regarding Claim 16, Studer (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 15 above) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach:
determining from the sensor data a distance and speed toward an object in the hoistway;
determining whether the object is the person; and
depending on the distance to the object and speed of the elevator car, stopping or reducing speed of the elevator car upon determining that the object is the person.
Oggianu discloses a system for detecting elevator mechanics in elevators that comprises: determining from sensor data 206 a distance and speed (current speed of an elevator car 202 is inherently known; also see 113, para. 0034) toward an object (mechanic wearing tag) in the hoistway 117;
determining whether the object is the person (unique identifier, para. 0041); and
depending on the distance to the object and speed of the elevator car 103, stopping or reducing speed of the elevator car 103 upon determining that the object is the person (safety action, paras. 0045, 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the teachings of Studer with those of Oggianu, so as to use extra layers of detection for safety, as is known in the art to be desirable.
Regarding Claim 17, Oggianu discloses a supplemental position reference system includes a supplemental sensor (master anchor) that is utilized to obtain a reference state (calibration phase) in which no person is within a travel path of the elevator car in the hoistway (para. 0049).
Regarding Claim 18, Oggianu discloses determining whether the object is the person by communication with a tag 206 configured for telecommunications and located in the hoistway 117 and associated with the person (paras. 0039, 0046).
Claim(s) 12,13,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studer/Oggianu, and further in view of Roussel et al (USPGP 20210101783).
Regarding Claim 20, Studer/Oggianu (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 18 above), discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach:
determining, by the elevator controller, that the elevator controller is in an inspection mode; and permitting, by the elevator controller, the elevator car to run regardless of whether the determination is rendered by the that the person is within the hoistway.
Roussel discloses an inspection control system for an elevator which comprises:
determining, by an elevator controller 2, that the elevator controller 2 is in an inspection mode (Fig. 3a, step 4); and
permitting, by the elevator controller 2, an elevator car 8 to run regardless of whether the determination is rendered that a person is within the hoistway (para. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the teachings of Studer/Oggianu with those of Roussel, as inspection modes for elevators in which mechanics can inspect the hoistway are known in the art to be desirable.
Regarding Claim 12, Roussel discloses the elevator controller is configured to operate in an inspection mode, whereby and the elevator controller is configured to run the elevator car at a reduced speed (walking speed) regardless of the determination that the person is in the hoistway (para. 0002).
Regarding Claim 13, Roussel discloses the inspection mode is a top of car inspection mode (operating device 3 for inspection is on the top of car 8, Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited show related teachings in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY DONELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
JEFFREY . DONELS
Examiner
Art Unit 2837
/JEFFREY DONELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837