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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/20/22. These drawings are approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 9 are 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.
It is not clear what applicant means by “electric fence lift door? Does the elevator car door have a barrier that uses electric shocks to deter people from crossing a boundary or is it just an electrically powered safety gate or door?
The examiner will interpret the claimed subject matter to mean an elevator system comprising an electrically powered safety gate that prevents access to the elevator shaft (hatchway).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps needed to accomplish the recited goal of controlling an elevator. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: The preamble of claim 7 is directed to a method for controlling an elevator, but the body of the claim only recites structural components of an elevator without describing the manner in which said components will be operated to perform a method of operation. Claims 8-10 also lack any algorithm 9method for controlling steps) for operating an elevator.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-6 be found allowable, claims 7-10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). There is no difference between the recited limitations in “apparatus” claims 1-6 and “method” claims 7-10. In order to overcome this objection, applicant needs to amend ‘the method claims” to recite the novel steps (algorithm) used to operate the elevator.
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) 1-2, 5, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zamorano Morfín (US Patent 7717237).
PNG
media_image1.png
691
293
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 7, Zamorano Morfín teaches a passenger or cargo elevator comprising: a steel frame structure including various components 43-44; a car 1; counterweights 13; and a power device comprising a servomotor 9, a speed reducer 8, shafts 5/11/17, an encoder 28, and a motion controller 26 for controlling the speed/acceleration of the motor which operates ascending/descending movement of the elevator car; and a weight balancing device comprising the counterweights, guide wheels 4/10/16, and steel wire chains 3/15, wherein the power device is fixedly installed on a plate 41 which is coupled to steel structure 42 and drives the chains and counterweights to move up/down are described in fig. 4 and corresponding description.
Claims 2 and 8, Zamorano Morfín teaches the elevator system further comprising two posts 14 and 2 counterweights 13 installed in the two posts respectively as shown above in Fig. 4.
Claims 5 and 10, Zamorano Morfín describes in col. 3 lines 22-28 that the different drawings purposely show only the internal components of the elevator system without showing the obvious walls that would need to cover the illustrated components. Therefore, it is inherent that Zamorano Morfín would have a protective cover around the electrical components of the power device and in order to prevent the electrical system from being exposed to outside elements.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamorano Morfín (US Patent 7717237).
Zamorano Morfín teaches the invention except for the numbers of posts and counterweights. It would have been an obvious design choice to provide an elevator structure with 4 posts/4 counterweights instead of 2 posts/2 counterweights, since the number of posts and counterweights in an elevator system depends on the intended use of a specific elevator system. Having more posts and counterweights would keep an elevator car perfectly aligned, prevent sway at higher speeds, balance the car weight, provide even load distribution, and increase smoother rides.
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamorano Morfín (US Patent 7717237) and Thomsen et al (US Patent 8469155).
Claims 4/9, the difference between the teachings of Zamorano Morfín and the limitations in claims 4/9 is that the claims recite an electrically powered safety gate for preventing a person from entering an elevator shaft.
However, Thomsen et al teaches an elevator system comprising an elevator car 12, elevator car doors 11, hallway doors 9, elevator shaft 6, guard rails 5 for partially blocking access to the elevator shaft 6, and an elevator life safety gate 2 for preventing a person/walker from accidently entering the elevator shaft 6, wherein the life safety guard automatically extends from underneath the elevator car to prevent access to the shaft.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a safety gate to the elevator system of Zamorano Morfín, since as described by Thomsen et al in col. 3 lines 40-44 the safety gate 2 can easily be retrofitted, this unique design adds a secondary barrier between the elevator car and the shaft to existing elevators making safer.
Claim 6, Thomsen et al teaches for example in fig. 8 and corresponding description a series of sensors and devices connected at the bottom of the elevator car/safety gate for monitoring movement of the elevator car within the elevator shaft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in the attached PTO-892 describe other elevator systems having commonly used mechanical and electrical components such as motors, position sensors, sprockets/wheels, steel chains or rope, speed reducers, counterweights, and safety means. US document 6318509 is listed to show commonly used covers for elevator systems to protect the internal components of an elevator system.
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 2846