DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to application filed on December 29, 2022.
Claims 1-18 filed on December 29, 2022 are being considered on the merits.
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 filed on December 29, 2022 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 29, 2022, August 22, 2023 and March 27, 2025 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, an initialed and dated copy of Applicant's IDS form 1449 filed are attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 opening phrase: “tension member tension monitoring arrangement for measuring tension member tension of elevator tension members of a bundle of tension members” — redundant phrasing is awkward written and could be rewritten in a clear manner.
Claim 2: “beneath or above of” — remove “of” (“beneath or above”).
Claim 11 and 15: “operate as a weighting device” — likely intended to be “weighing device.”
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 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With regards to claim 17, the claim is directed to “A computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 12.” A “computer program” per se is not a statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03 (Statutory Categories) (software per se is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claim, as drafted, attempts to claim software “as such” rather than as a method or as a manufacture (e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium). As such, it is non-statutory. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106;
With regards to claim 18, the claim is directed to “A computer-readable medium comprising the computer program according to claim 17.” As drafted, “computer-readable medium” (CRM) is broad enough to encompass transitory propagating signals, which are non-statutory subject matter. The specification also does not limit or exclude the CRM to “non-transitory” or equivalent to exclude signals). Accordingly, claim 18 is directed, at least in part, to non-statutory subject matter and fails § 101.
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.
The below claims 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.
Claim 8: “the arrangement comprises conducting means and a connector …” conducting means” appear to invokes §112(f). However, the specification does not disclose corresponding structure for “conducting means,” Therefore the claim is indefinite.
Claim 8: “the arrangement comprises conducting means and a connector …” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does equate conducting means to element 503; however, it is not clear what structural element 503 entails. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The below claims contain limitations that have insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim:
Claim 3: “at least one washer arranged between the individual sensor element and a termination spring …” — “individual sensor element” has no antecedent basis in claim 1 or 2.
Claim 5: “an individual sensor element and/or capacitive sensing element of the sensor …” — “individual sensor element” lacks antecedent basis in claims from which it depends.
Claim 7 (depends on claim 6): recites “the elastic material” but claim 6 does not introduce “elastic material.” That term appears first in claim 4. As drafted, claim 7 lacks proper antecedent basis unless it depends from claim 4 as well.
Claim 8 (depends on claim 1): “between individual sensor elements and the connector” — “individual sensor elements” are first introduced in claim 6, not in claim 1; antecedent basis is missing for claim 8 as written.
The following phrase “such as” or “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1: “such as ropes or belts”
Claim 2: “e.g. to car side …”
Claim 4: “e.g. on top … e.g. under …”
Claim 7: “e.g. below … e.g. on top …”
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barrett et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0087404 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Barrett) in view of U.S. Sooriakumar et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,648,879 (hereinafter referred to as Sooriakumar).
With regards to claim 1, Barrett discloses an elevator comprising an elevator car suspended by a plurality of tension members, such as ropes or belts, forming a bundle of tension members (refer to at least paragraphs [0002-0005]), with terminations at ends of the tension members and mounting structures for attaching the terminations relative to the elevator car, counterweight, or hoistway structure (refer to at least paragraphs [00018-0025]). Barrett further discloses a tension member tension monitoring arrangement including force or load sensors arranged in connection with the tension member terminations (refer to at least paragraphs [0026-0035]) and a control or evaluation unit connected to the sensors and configured to receive sensor signals and determine tension or load conditions of the tension members (refer to at least paragraphs [0036-0042]), wherein the sensors sense forces of the tension members of the bundle and generate signals representative of the sensed loads.
Barrett does not expressly disclose that the force sensors are capacitive pressure sensors. Sooriakumar teaches a capacitive pressure sensor comprising a first substrate having a movable plate and a second substrate with a fixed plate forming a capacitor, wherein deflection of the movable plate in response to applied pressure causes a change in capacitance that can be measured as an electrical signal proportional to the applied pressure (refer to at least abstract, paragraph [0001], figs. 1-3), suitable for generating a signal readable by control circuitry.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the force sensors of Barrett by employing a capacitive pressure sensor as taught by Sooriakumar at the tension member termination, because capacitive pressure sensors were well known, accurate, and reliable force-sensing devices that represent a known, predictable alternative to other types of force sensors for generating signals proportional to applied loads. The combination therefore teaches or renders obvious a tension member tension monitoring arrangement including at least one capacitive pressure sensor arranged in connection with a tension member termination and a control unit connected to the sensor, wherein the sensor senses tension member forces of the bundle of tension members and generates a signal proportional to the sensed load or force and readable by the control unit, as recited in Claim 1.
With regards to claim 2, Barrett discloses an arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is arranged beneath or above of individual tension member terminations, e.g. to car side tension member termination, counterweight side tension member termination and/or hoistway tension member termination (Barrett positions a sensor “between the spring 44 and the upper surface 46 of the mounting plate 42” at each rope termination on the car/counterweight side (load cell 56 at hitch/termination), (Fig. 1–2; paragraphs 0011 and 0024)).
With regards to claim 3, Barrett discloses an arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the arrangement comprises at least one washer arranged between the individual sensor element and a termination spring of a tension member, wherein the reaction force to the sensor element is guided through a washer (Barrett places “a washer 58 … between the load cell 56 and the spring 44 to distribute the load evenly,” and also discloses a spherical/self-aligning washer 60 to guide the reaction force (Fig. 3; paragraphs 0020 and 0024)).
With regards to claim 4, Barrett discloses an arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises elastic material and sensing element arranged to the first side, e.g. on top, of the elastic material, and conductive plate arranged on the second side, e.g. under, of the elastic material, wherein distance between the conductive plate and the element is configured to vary as a function of the load, and/or wherein the elastic material comprises foam, solid plastic material, polyurethane, silicone, thermoplastic elastomer and/or BASF Cellasto, e.g. MH24-55 (Barrett discloses “a load cell 56 [bonded foil strain gauge, full bridge]” compressed by spring 44 (paragraphs 0022-0023: “The load cells 56 typically include a bonded foil … full bridge”).
With regards to claim 5, Barrett discloses an arrangement according to claim 1, wherein an individual sensor element and/or capacitive sensing element of the sensor has a round, a square or a honey-comb shape (Barrett describes the sensor body as “a circular shape defining a hole through which the rod 38 passes,”).
With regards to claim 6, Barrett discloses an arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the arrangement comprises one sensor structure comprising multiple sensor elements in the sensor structure wherein each sensor element is arranged in connection with an individual tension member termination (Barrett discloses multiple per-rope sensors—one load cell 56 at each termination on the mounting plate 42 (Fig. 1–2; “there is one load cell for each tension member”)—meeting the “multiple sensor elements each arranged in connection with an individual tension member termination” aspect).
With regards to claim 8, Barrett discloses an arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the arrangement comprises conducting means and a connector for connecting the sensor to the control unit, wherein the conducting means are arranged between individual sensor elements and the connector (Barrett includes conductors/connectors because “signals from each load cell 56 are summed together for a total load” or analyzed individually, implying wiring from each sensor to a controller/summing circuit (paragraphs 0022-0023)).
With regards to claim 9, Barrett discloses an arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the arrangement is configured to measure relative force values between the different tension members and/or tension member terminations and/or compare reaction forces between each tension member and/or tension member termination (Barrett teaches comparing per-rope loads since “signals from each load cell 56 [may be] analyzed individually to determine which portion of the load is borne by each tension member,” enabling relative force comparison (paragraphs 0022-0023)).
With regards to claim 10, Barrett discloses an arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the arrangement is configured to measure reference level in the beginning of elevator operation life or force values without load, e.g. when tension members are loose, for example on car side (Barrett’s discloses that individual load cell signals are analyzed and ropes are adjusted for balance at installation which inherently include measuring a reference or near no-load baseline at the beginning of operation).
With regards to claim 11, Barrett discloses an arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is installed in connection with the elevator car side tension member termination and/or the arrangement is configured to operate as a weighting device by using sum of measured absolute loads for all tension members in determining weight of the elevator car and/or the load of the elevator car (Barrett discloses that “signals from each load cell 56 [are] summed together for a total load,” enabling operation as a weighing device to determine car weight from per-rope measurements (paragraphs 0022-0023; Fig. 1–2)).
Claims 12-18 do not define anything beyond the claims above; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as correcting the 112 issues as raised above.
Claim 7, in combination with claim 6 (multi-element sensor structure) and claim 4 (capacitive stack with elastic material and conductive plate), defines a specific multi-element capacitive array architecture that is structurally and functionally different from Barrett’s multiple discrete load cells.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (refer to the attached 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWKI SAIF ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-3985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571-272-4483. 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.
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837