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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-9, 13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kulak et al. (US 2006/0207835 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Kulak discloses a method and an arrangement (e.g. Abstract & claim 16) for evaluating an orientation of an elevator car (e.g. Fig. 1), the arrangement comprising:
at least one inclination sensor (e.g. Fig. 1: 26) associable associated to the elevator car of an elevator system (e.g. Fig. 1), and
a control unit (e.g. Fig. 1: 24) configured to:
obtain measurement data from the at least one inclination sensor associated to the elevator car, the measurement data comprising data values indicative of an orientation of the elevator car (e.g. Fig. 1: accelerometer 26; Abstract & [0006, 0016, 0025]: orientation),
compare the data values of the measurement data to reference data values, values (e.g. [0016, 0025-0026]: compare sensed condition to desired condition); and
set, in accordance with the comparison between the data values of the measurement data to the reference data values, a detection result to express the orientation of the elevator car is improper (e.g. [0016, 0025-0026]: difference is provided to controller to adjust rollers if the detected values deviates from desired conditions; the need to adjust roller indicate the orientation is improper); and
in response to setting the detection result to correspond that the orientation of the elevator car is improper (e.g. [0016, 0025-0026]: difference), generating a control signal to cause at least one of the following:
a prevention of a travel of the elevator car;
a braking of a motion of the elevator car; and
a generation an alarm signal (e.g. [0025-0026]: using the difference to indicate abnormality; thus, alarm/alert signal) to a pre-defined destination (e.g. Abstract & [0016, 0025-0026]: sending signals to redistribute loads on rollers to maintain orientation of the elevator).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Kulak discloses the comparison step of comparing comprises: detecting if at least one data value of the measurement data deviates from a respective reference data value (e.g. [0016, 0025-0026]: difference) over a predefined limit (e.g. zero).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Kulak discloses the inclination sensor is an accelerometer (e.g. Fig. 1: 26 & [0016]).
Regarding claim 17, Kulak discloses the arrangement is implemented as an apparatus comprising the control unit (e.g. Fig. 1: 24) and the at least one inclination sensor (e.g. Fig. 1: 26 & [0016]).
Regarding claim 18, Kulak discloses an elevator system (e.g. Abstract) comprising: an elevator car (e.g. Fig. 1); and the arrangement according to any of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 19, Kulak discloses a computer program product embodied on anon-transitory computer readable medium (e.g. [0017]: program and software implies being stored in a memory) for evaluating an orientation of an elevator car ([0017]: program, software), which, when executed by at least one processor (e.g. Fig. 1: 24), cause causes a control unit (e.g. Fig. 1: 24) to perform the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 2, 6, 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulak et al. (US 2006/0207835 A1) in view of Tyni et al .(US 2008/0173502 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Kulak discloses a method and an arrangement (e.g. Abstract & claim 16) for evaluating an orientation of an elevator car (e.g. Fig. 1), the arrangement comprising:
at least one inclination sensor (e.g. Fig. 1: 26) associable associated to the elevator car of an elevator system (e.g. Fig. 1), and
a control unit (e.g. Fig. 1: 24) configured to:
obtain measurement data from the at least one inclination sensor associated to the elevator car, the measurement data comprising data values indicative of an orientation of the elevator car (e.g. Fig. 1: accelerometer 26; Abstract & [0006, 0016, 0025]: orientation),
compare the data values of the measurement data to reference data values, values (e.g. [0016, 0025-0026]: compare sensed condition to desired condition); and
set, in accordance with the comparison between the data values of the measurement data to the reference data values, a detection result to express the orientation of the elevator car is improper (e.g. [0016, 0025-0026]: difference is provided to controller to adjust rollers if the detected values deviates from desired conditions; the need to adjust roller indicate the orientation is improper); and
in response to setting the detection result to correspond that the orientation of the elevator car is improper (e.g. [0016, 0025-0026]: difference), generating a control signal (e.g. Abstract & [0016, 0025-0026]: sending signals based on the difference to redistribute loads on rollers to maintain orientation of the elevator).
In addition, the difference signal indicates improper orientation as taught by Kulak is broadly in interpreted as abnormality signal.
Kulak fails to disclose, but Tyni teaches in response to elevator malfunctioning (e.g. [0002]: stop the elevator), generating a control signal to cause at least one of the following:
a prevention of a travel of the elevator car (e.g. [0002]);
a braking of a motion of the elevator car (e.g. [0002]); and
a generation an alarm signal to a pre-defined destination.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kulak with the teachings of Tyni to stop an elevator in case of malfunctioning occurs so as to prevent damage to the elevator and/or enhance safety of passengers within the elevator.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulak et al. (US 2006/0207835 A1) in view of Sone (JP 2018090403 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Kulak discloses obtaining the measurement data from the at least one inclination sensor (see rejections of claims 1 and 9), but Kulak fails to disclose the reference data values are generated computationally by one of:
obtaining the measurement data from the at least one inclination sensor in response to a detection that the elevator car is empty and an indication of an allowable take-off of the elevator car is generated; and
obtaining the measurement data from the at least one inclination sensor in response to a detection that the elevator car is empty and the elevator car travels at a constant speed.
In other words, Kulak fails to disclose measuring data when elevator car is empty and travels in constant speed as reference data.
However, Sone teaches it is known in the art to measure elevator running data as reference/baseline data when the elevator is empty (i.e. no-load) and travels at a constant speed (e.g. p. 10: accurate data can be obtained in low-speed constant speed operation, and reference data is generated in the no-load state).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kulak with the teachings of Sone to measure baseline orientation data of an elevator (i.e. desired condition) when the elevator is running at low-speed constant speed with no-load, since Sone suggests determining the baseline data in this manner could provide an accurate baseline for comparing operation data of an elevator during travels (e.g. p. 10).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Kulak discloses the measurement data is obtained from the at least one inclination sensor (see rejections of claims 1 and 9), and Sone teaches it is known to obtain measurement data in at least at one of the following instants of time: an indication of an allowable take-off of the elevator car is generated; and a detection of a constant speed of the elevator car is generated (e.g. p. 10).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulak et al. (US 2006/0207835 A1) in view of Cerwin (US 2010/0088914 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Kulak fails to disclose, but Cerwin teaches the reference data values are defined in accordance with a temperature in an operation environment of the at least one inclination sensor (e.g. [0078]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kulak with the teachings of Cerwin to counter temperature-based changes in sensitivity or offset of a sensor (e.g. [0051]).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Kulak disclose applying reference data values in the step of comparing (see rejections of claims 1 and 9), and Cerwin teaches the steps of:
obtaining data indicative of an operating temperature of the accelerometer; generating an inquiry to data storage for obtaining the reference data values corresponding to the operating temperature of the inclination sensor, the inquiry comprising data indicative of the operating temperature of the inclination sensor (e.g. [0051, 0078]: using software to provide configuration data offset for temperature-based inclination sensor and/or accelerometer in various ambient temperatures implies provide different temperature-based offset in data storage).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulak et al. (US 2006/0207835 A1) in view of Sone (JP 2018090403 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Cerwin (US 2010/0088914 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Kulak fails to disclose, but Cerwin teaches the reference data values are defined in accordance with a temperature in an operation environment of the at least one inclination sensor (e.g. [0078]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kulak with the teachings of Cerwin to counter temperature-based changes in sensitivity or offset of a sensor (e.g. [0051]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot in view of updated rejections in view of Kulak, and a new ground of rejections in view of Kulak and Tyni.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-14 and 16-20 are unpatentable at least in view of updated and new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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.
/KAWING CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights