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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/25/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to JP 2012-030942 not teaching the new added limitation to the independent claims with respect to a light source extending continuously along an elevator shaft has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of the pending claims will be modified as shown herein.
In reference to applicant’s argument that the applied prior art does not teach a light source indicating at least two states, wherein a first state and a second state each include upward and downward movement of the elevator car, the reference explicitly teaches an illumination device that alters light colors to correspond to different situations. One of ordinary skill in the art that elects to apply this illumination device to an elevator shaft would look to the primary situational change inherent to an elevator: its direction of travel. Since an elevator car primarily operates in two states, upward movement and downward movement, applying the prior art’s color changing illumination device to these two precise situations is a matter of routine optimalization yielding entirely predictable results.
In reference to applicant’s arguments with respect to the applied prior art not teaching the two claimed states of a normal operation and emergency/maintenance operation, the applied prior art teaches changing the color of the outputting lights. In the context of passenger transit, “normal operation” and “emergency/maintenance operation” represent a standard operational framework in elevator systems. Using the prior art’s color-changing mechanism to distinguish between safety states and normal operation is a common-sense application of the reference’s express teachings.
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) 16, 18-26, and 28-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leze et al (US Publication 2019/0084799) and JP 2012-030942 (translation was provided by applicant with the IDS filed on 3/13/23), of record.
Claims 16, 26, and 32, Leze et al teaches lighting system for elevator systems and a method for illuminating an elevator shaft comprising: a light source 231/306 extending continuously alone an elevator shaft 317 and illuminate the elevator shaft of elevator system 201 and an elevator controller 315 for selectively controlling that specific lighting and illumination within the elevator shaft can be achieved (see for example the description given in paragraph 0029).
Although Leze et al teaches (paragraph 0029) their illumination system using controller 315 to control specific lighting, they do not specifically describe the light source emitting multiple light signals which can be used to describe multiple states or situations within the elevator shaft.
However, the Japanese document describes an illumination device or a method for illuminating an elevator system comprising: a light source, represented by light emitters 61-67, adapted to illuminate an elevator shaft (hoistway 2) of the elevator system 1 and indicate multiple situations of the elevator system, wherein the light emitters can emit a first blinking blue light signal, a second blinking red light signal, or a white light signal. Additionally, the difference between the light signals is visible by a person (see paragraph 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the plurality of colored lights in the system described by Leze et al, since using color-changing lights as described by the Japanese document to distinguish between safety situations and normal operation of the elevator car is a commonsense application of the prior art illumination device. A controller for an illumination device can easily be programmed to select any color of lights to let a person in an elevator shaft know of a specific situation, wherein said situations are considered a design choice.
Claims 18 and 28, the Japanese document describes a safety element 5 which includes work switch 51 and fire switch 52, wherein light emitter 61-64 are activated/deactivated when the safety switch is ON/OFF, see for example the description given in paragraph 0018.
Claim 19, the Japanese document describes at least one of the safety switches 52 being connected to access door, see for example paragraph 0014, wherein the switching state of the safety switch 52 is determined by control unit 4.
Claims 20 and 29, the Japanese document describes, paragraph 0023, the first light being a blinking blue light, the second blinking light being red, and the third blinking light being white.
Claim 21, the light source of the illumination device is described as a plurality of light emitters (see paragraph 0018), wherein the emitters are connected in various locations along the height of the elevator system. The preferred format of light emitting diodes is considered a design choice and is not given any patentable weight.
Claims 22 and 30, the Japanese document describes an optical sensor 42 which includes a plate connected to the shaft 2 and a microswitch connected to the elevator car 3. Additionally, a second sensor 43 is connected to the elevator car for detecting movement, direction, and speed of the elevator car. The detected signals are sent to control unit 4 which uses the plurality of light emitters 61-67 to alert the service technician/rescue worker about the movement of the elevator car 3.
Claim 23, the Japanese document describes control unit 4 for controlling the alarm/alert system of the elevator system.
Claim 24, the Japanese document describes the use of a primary voltage source (public grid) and an emergency power supply 44, see the description given in paragraph 0027.
Claims 25 and 31, the Japanese document teaches an elevator system comprising an elevator shaft 2 and an illumination device or a method for illuminating an elevator shaft as described above in the rejection of claim 26 (Leze et al describes an illumination device extending over the height of the elevator shaft).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional documents are listed in the attached PTO-892 that show illumination devices commonly used in elevator systems during different operation modes of said elevator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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 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.
/RINA I DUDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights