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 11/29/22. These drawings are approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for monitoring a suspension member by analyzing a series of data points using a combination of different techniques to determine a maintenance condition, which is a mathematical algorithm performed by a generic computer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the decision to “remove” the suspension member is simply acting on the result of the analysis, which does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited method steps can easily be performed using conventional generic computing/sensing components and they do not encompass an inventive concept in the elevator art.
In reference to the apparatus claims, they clearly describe the use of a computer performing the mathematical algorithm which has been determined to be an abstract idea without significantly more. The recited limitations are not directed to an inventive concept or improvement in the elevator art.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henneau (US Publication 20180215584) and O’Donnell et al (US Patent 6123176).
Claim 1, Henneau teaches a method for monitoring a suspension member of an elevator system comprising: determining a condition (deterioration) of the suspension member 11 based on a combination of an electrical inspection technique performed by electrical measuring device 27 and a secondary inspection performed by a use indicator 25 that counts an amount of use of the suspension member 11 (counting the number of bending cycles applied to the suspension member), and a mechanical characteristic indicator; and determining to remove (replace) the suspension member 11 based on the combination of the electrical inspection and the secondary inspection.
Even though Henneau uses redundant safety inspection techniques involving duplicating critical system checks to ensure that suspension members are an optimal shape, he does not describe the use of a third safety check related to a second mechanical characteristic of the suspension member.
However, O’Donnell et al teaches method for monitoring the tension of a suspension member (rope) using an elevator system 12, the method comprises: detecting the wear of suspension ropes 22 using monitoring assembly 62 (that includes load cells 56) that detects the level of tension of suspension ropes 22 (col. 3 lines36-41) or elevator passenger and or freight load in elevator car 14 (col. 3 lines 52-55); using controller 64 to determine if the detected tension/load is greater than predetermined values and either generates a warning to indicate that a particular rope 22 requires inspection by a service mechanic or shuts down the elevator system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use multiple electrical and mechanical inspection checks to provide a more comprehensive assessment of both the structural integrity and the operational safety of the elevator system before determining that a suspension member needs to be removed/replaced (Henneau provides in paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0035 the benefits for using a plurality of different checks to determine the health of a suspension member in an elevator system). Therefore, using two or three or more inspection techniques to determine the health of an elevator system component would depend on how robust of a safety net is desired to ensure early detection of hidden internal damage.
Claim 2, Henneau describes for example in paragraphs 0039-0042 that the suspension member 11 would not need to be replaced if only the electrical characteristic inspection unit outputs a potential issue, but no mechanical issue is detected.
Claim 3, Henneau describes for example in paragraphs 0184-0186 that elevator system 1 needs to be stopped in order to remove/replace suspension member 11 when the electrical characteristic inspection satisfies one of a predetermined criteria and at least one of the mechanical characteristic inspections satisfies a predetermined criterion.
Claim 4, Henneau describes in paragraph 0186 that a shutdown of the elevator system 1 is allowed in order to remove/replace a bad suspension member 11.
Claim 5, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Henneau/O’Donnell et al describes determining the condition of a suspension member based on a combination of inspection techniques, wherein a plurality of threshold values is used to determine if the suspension ropes are operating within required stipulations (see for example the threshold values given in Henneau paragraph 0185 and O’Donnell et al col. 4 lines 38-45).
Claim 6, Henneau describes for example in paragraph 0188 that a control device 18, which controls the overall operation of the elevator system 1, executes a computer program for automatically controlling the operation of the elevator system.
Claim 7, the use of a third or fourth inspection technique in addition to the inspection techniques recited in claim 1 would act as safeguard. If one single inspection method does not provide a clear determination of a problem in the elevator system, then a combination of different inspection techniques may result in a more comprehensive assessment of the system.
Claim 8, it is obvious that if the detected electrical and mechanical characteristics are within predetermined values, the suspension member would not need to be replaced.
Claim 9, Henneau describes the electrical inspection technique as including determining an electrical resistance of at least one conductive tension member of the suspension member, see for example the description given in paragraphs 0210-0212 that electrical current, voltage, and resistance are determined.
Claim 10, Henneau describes in paragraph 0176 a suspension member 11 which is embodied with a belt 19. The belt comprises a plurality of cords 23 enclosed in jacket.
Claim 11, Henneau describes indicator 25 counting bending cycles that suspension member 11 has experienced during use of elevator system 1 and as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, O’Donnell et al describes the use of an elevator passenger load sensor.
Claim 12, Henneau teaches an elevator system 1 comprising: elevator car 3; a suspension member 11 that supports the elevator car and facilitates movement of said car (see paragraph 0173); and at least one processor in control unit 18, wherein the processor is configured to performed the method recited in claim 1 which has been rejected above.
Claim 13, Henneau describes for example in paragraphs 0039-0042 that the suspension member 11 would not need to be replaced if only the electrical characteristic inspection unit outputs a potential issue, but no mechanical issue is detected.
Claim 14, Henneau describes for example in paragraphs 0184-0186 that elevator system 1 needs to be stopped in order to remove/replace suspension member 11 when the electrical characteristic inspection satisfies one of a predetermined criteria and at least one of the mechanical characteristic inspections satisfies a predetermined criterion.
Claim 15, Henneau describes in paragraph 0186 that a shutdown of the elevator system 1 is allowed in order to remove/replace a bad suspension member 11.
Claim 16, as described in the rejection of claim 12 above, Henneau/O’Donnell et al describes a control unit 18 for determining the condition of a suspension member based on a combination of inspection techniques, wherein a plurality of threshold values is used to determine if the suspension ropes are operating within required stipulations (see for example the threshold values given in Henneau paragraph 0185 and O’Donnell et al col. 4 lines 38-45).
Claim 17, the use of a third or fourth inspection technique in addition to the inspection techniques recited in claim 12 would act as safeguard. If one single inspection technique does not provide a clear determination of a problem in the elevator system, then a combination of different inspection techniques may result in more a comprehensive assessment of the system.
Claim 18, it is obvious that if the detected electrical and mechanical characteristics are within predetermined values, the suspension member would not need to be replaced.
Claims 19 and 20, Henneau describes the electrical inspection technique as including an electrical inspection device 27 that is configured to provide an indication of an electrical resistance of at least one conductive tension member of the suspension member, see for example the description given in paragraphs 0210-0212 that electrical current, voltage, and resistance are determined; and a cycle counter 25 configured to provide elevator usage information to control unit 18. Additionally, as described in the rejection of claim 12 (and claim 1), O’Donnell et al describes the use of an additional mechanical characteristic sensor 62 for providing a control unit 64 with information related to the tension of a suspension member 22 or the passenger load.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents cited in the attached PTO-892 form describe other method or system for monitoring the health of a suspension member of an elevator system, wherein electrical parameters as well as mechanical characteristics are detected to determine if the suspension member should be replaced.
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