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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to applicant’s arguments with respect to the applied prior art not teaching an illumination device comprising a light source consistent with the specification disclosure of an LED strip extending continuously over the entire shaft to provide actual shaft illumination, independent claim 16 does not include anything about how much of the elevator shaft (area) must be illuminated by the light source and what constitute an actual shaft illumination. The claim only requires an illumination device comprising a light source to illuminate the elevator shaft, light emitters 61-67 of the prior art illuminate different areas of the shaft since they output a light visible by workers inside the shaft. The prior art clearly describes (paragraph 0022) each of the emitters having a light source for emitting at least a white, red, or blue light. Paragraph 0024 describes how rescue workers use the light emitted by emitters 61-67, in the elevator shaft, to determine movement and direction of the elevator cage 3 and/or counterweight.
In reference to applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art not teaching applicant’s meaning of “states”, claim 16 does not include any specific meaning for “first state” and “second state”. Contrary to applicant’s assessment, the prior art clearly teaches emitters 61-67 emitting different light signals (white, yellow, blue, or red lights) to indicate different operational states (movement/direction of elevator car/counterweight or amount of residual power of emergency power supply 44 to list a few). The claimed language does not exclude the examiner’s interpretation of the word “state”. If applicant’s description of “first state” and “second state” is a distinguishing feature of his invention, said specific and preferred description must be part of the claim.
In reference to applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 17 and 27, the prior art describes the light and pattern of the light emitted by the light emitters 61-67 change based on the direction of movement of the elevator cage and/or counterweight, or weather switches 51/52 (work switch and secondary fire switch) have been activated in combination with the direction of movement of the elevator cage/counterweight, or the weather or not an emergency power supply 44 is being used due to a power outage, or weather or not people are inside of the elevator cage when mechanics/rescue workers are in the shaft and the elevator cage is moving or stationary. The claims do not specifically recite what a “normal” operating mode is. Applicant needs to amend the claims to recite what he considers a “normal” operating mode to be otherwise the examiner may select any of the prior art modes of operation as a normal operating mode.
In reference to applicant’s argument with respect to the rejection of claims 18, 19, and 28, the prior art teaches the use of safety elements 51/52, wherein when these elements are activated and the elevator cage/counterweight moves in different directions or elevator cage remains in one single place (possible in between floor, or at the bottom floor), the lights emitted by the emitters change from blue, to red, to white (see paragraph 0022) or new light colors are used if an emergency power supply 44 is used (see for example paragraph 0028). Light emitter 67 corresponds to the recited door, wherein the color could change to green.
In reference to the arguments with respect to claim 21, the prior art describes a plurality of emitters 61-67 located in different areas of shaft 2. Additionally, paragraph 0021 clearly describe the plurality of emitters could also be located on guide rail 31 as shown in fig. 2. This optional placement of the emitters clearly read on light-emitters extending continuously along the height of the elevator shaft forming “one strip”. The claim does not recite a strip of light emitting diodes (one single component) being connected to any one structural area of the elevator shaft.
In reference to the arguments with respect to claims 22 and 30, the claims do not specify what the sensors are detecting. If applicant is trying to claim the sensors detect a safety situation as recited in claim 19, that is not part of the claim. Optical sensors are commonly used to detect position and speed.
No specific arguments were presented against the rejection of claims 20, 23, 24, and 29.
The response to the arguments against claim 16 is also applied to claims 25, 26, and 31.
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.
Claim(s) 16-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2012-030942 (translation was provided by applicant with the IDS filed on 3/13/23).
Claims 16 and 26, 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 at least two states of the elevator system, wherein the light emitters emit a first blinking blue light signal when the car is moving upward, emit a second blinking red light signal when the elevator car moves downward, or emit a white light signal when the car is stopped(see the description of the different states in paragraph 0023). Additionally, the difference between the light signals is visible by a person (see paragraph 0024).
Claims 17 and 27, the claim has not established what “normal operating mode” is, therefore the examiner considers the upward movement of the elevator car (described in paragraph 0023) as the “normal operating mode” and the emergency operating mode as the downward movement of the elevator car (described in paragraph 0023).
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 either 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 the 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 claims 16 and 26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional documents have been cited in the attached PTO-892; these documents describe other elevator systems that include a plurality of light sources.
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 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