DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 03/31/2026:
claims 1-20 are currently pending
claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration
claims 1 and 10 are amended
previously presented 112b rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims
prior art grounds of rejection addressing newly amended claims based on Ding, Arnout and Loiselet are presented herein
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 111196694 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as DING, in view of Arnout et al. (WO 2020025691 A1), hereinafter referred to as ARNOUT, and Loiselet et al. (US 20110240415 A1), hereinafter referred to as LOISELET.
Regarding claim 1, DING teaches an elevator element manufacturing method (see DING at paragraph [1]: a production method for preparing elevator counterweights), comprising the steps of:
providing material in powder and/or granulate form (see DING at paragraph [25]: heavy particles, iron powder, sand and cement),
filling a mould with a mixture comprising said material and water for creating mixture (see DING at paragraphs [25]: the components of heavy particles, iron powder, sand and cement are proportioned, an appropriate amount of water is added and the raw materials are stirred by a mixer; and [26]: pour the uniformly stirred raw materials into the prefabricated mold); and
allowing the mixture to realize a reaction in the mould (see DING at paragraph [26]: solidification and molding).
DING discloses that the invention uses heavy particles, iron powder, sand and cement as the counterweight raw materials, which are easy to obtain and low-cost materials (see DING at paragraph [19]); DING also discloses that the solid waste includes scrap metal, glass, ceramics, blast furnace slag, steel slag (see DING at paragraph [14]). While DING teaches the use of a cement, DING fails to explicitly teach the aluminum silicate precursor and/or calcium silicate precursor, alkalic reactance and forming a polymer structure based on polycondensation bonding structures.
However, ARNOUT discloses binders for mortar or concrete comprising a mixture consisting of Fe-comprising metallurgical slag, a calcium comprising additive and an alkali (see ARNOUT at Abstract). ARNOUT also discloses the chemical composition of Fe-rich metallurgical slags comprising SiO2 and Al2O2 (see ARNOUT at lines 14-19, p. 15), thus ARNOUT teaches a binder comprising aluminum silicate. ARNOUT teaches that slag is ground to a specific Blaine surface (see ARNOUT at line 28, p. 15). ARNOUT also teaches that inorganic polymers are formed after mixing the following components: a solid precursor, which is itself a mixture of solids, and an alkaline activator, which can be solid or in a solution; the solid precursors are fly ash from coal combustion, metakaolin, as well as ground granulated blast furnace slag; with respect to the alkaline activators, these are usually concentrated solutions of Na,K-hydroxides and Na,K-silicates; the reaction mechanism to form inorganic polymers involves dissolution of the solid precursor by alkaline hydrolysis, gelation and finally rearrangement and reorganization, to a three-dimensional network (see ARNOUT at lines 28-36, p. 20). ARNOUT teaches a way to upcycle Fe-rich streams towards a novel binder that is durable, sustainable, and safe-to-use (see ARNOUT at lines 30-31, p. 4); and that a disclosed composition is a self-leveling, vibrational or pressable binder mix, where the mix is a binder, mortar or concrete, that is subsequently cured at a range of temperatures and pressures (see ARNOUT at lines 12-15, p. 5).
Both DING and ARNOUT disclose cementitious compositions comprising solid waste such as slag. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of DING by replacing cement with the binder comprising aluminum silicate, a calcium comprising additive and an alkali activator comprising Na or K-silicate, as disclosed by ARNOUT based on teachings of ARNOUT describing upcycling Fe-rich streams towards a binder that is durable, sustainable, and safe-to-use; and that such binder can form a self-leveling, vibrational or pressable binder mix composition.
The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
While DING as modified by ARNOUT teaches a production method for preparing elevator counterweights comprising a step of filling a mould with a mixture, DING fails to explicitly teach the mould having a shape to form an elevator car ballast.
However, LOISELET discloses a modular weighting element assembly to be assembled to one or more modular element(s) in order to obtain a ballast bar, known as an ingot, to create, for example, an elevator and/or load elevator counterweight system (see LOISELET at paragraph [0010]). LOISELET also discloses that said element is made of cast iron and obtained after molding: the production of an element in cast iron allows to obtain modular elements having a high specific mass, said element may also be composed of another material, such as steel or concrete, for example (see LOISELET at paragraph [0038]). Additionally, LOISELET discloses that a modular weighting element assembly can be automatedly manufactured and at lower costs using a molding method, and allows the production of a ballast bar arrangement and/or a counterweight system using only one kind of modular element, being easy to manipulate and easy to assemble to another identical element (see LOISELET at paragraphs [0007-8]). As evidenced from the aforementioned disclosure of LOISELET, it is known in the art that a modular weighting elevator element, such as a ballast bar, can be made by molding steel or concrete materials. LOISELET also teaches that the ballast bar can be utilized for production of counterweight system as well as for production of another elevator element (see LOISELET at paragraph [0010]: to create, for example, an elevator and/or load elevator counterweight system).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the method for forming an elevator element of DING by utilizing the modular weighting element assembly by molding, e.g., to form a ballast bar as disclosed by LOISELET since LOISELET explicitly teaches that a modular weighting element assembly allows the production of a ballast bar arrangement and/or a counterweight system using only one kind of modular element, being easy to manipulate and easy to assemble to another identical element (see LOISELET at paragraphs [0007-8]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method for forming an elevator element of DING by utilizing the modular weighting element assembly by molding, e.g., to form a ballast bar, as disclosed by LOISELET in order to allow the production of a ballast bar arrangement and/or a counterweight system using only one kind of modular element, thus lowering manufacturing cost using a molding method.
Regarding claim 2, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the alkalic reactance comprises potassium soluble silicate (see rejection of claim1 above and ARNOUT at lines 28-36, p. 20: Na,K-silicates).
Regarding claim 3, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the alkalic reactance comprises sodium soluble silicate (see rejection of claim 1 above and ARNOUT at lines 28-36, p. 20: Na,K-silicates).
Regarding claim 4, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the precursor material comprises at least one of: blast furnace slag, basic-oxygen furnace slag (BOF slag), electric-arc furnace slag (EAF slag), knockner oxygen blown maxhutte slag (KOBM slag), and casting slag (see rejection of claim 1 above and ARNOUT at lines 17-19, p. 13: ground granulated blast furnace slag, BOF slag, AOD slag, stainless steel slag).
Regarding claim 5, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the precursor material comprises rock-based geopolymer cement (see rejection of claim 1 above and ARNOUT at lines 17-19, p. 13: ground granulated blast furnace slag, BOF slag, AOD slag, stainless steel slag). It is noted, that composition of ARNOUT comprises slag (rock-like material), thus reading on the limitation “rock-based geopolymer cement”.
Regarding claim 6, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the precursor material comprises fly ash-based geopolymer cement (see rejection of claim 1 above and ARNOUT at lines 16-18, p. 13: mineral additions can be added up to 30% of the dry binder; list of addition includes: fly ash from power and waste incineration plants).
Regarding claim 7, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the precursor material comprises ferro-sialate-based geopolymer cement (see rejection of claim 1 above and ARNOUT at lines 21-29, p. 12: the main component of the binder is an Fe-rich glass or Fe-rich metallurgical slag; the chemical composition of the base elements comprises FeO/Fe2O3: 20-70 wt% SiO2: 10-50 wt%).
Regarding claim 8, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising the step of adding Portland cement to the material (see rejection of claim 1 above and ARNOUT at lines 1-2 and 12-13, p. 20: the present invention describes a binder where at least 40 to 50 wt% of the OPC (Ordinary Portland cement) is replaced by a finely ground Fe-rich glass or Fe-rich metallurgical slag; by the combination of OPC and alkali activation, the cost and environmental footprint of the binder is kept as low as possible).
Regarding claim 9, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising the step of adding a filler material in the mixture for increasing density of the elevator element (see DING at paragraph [36]: through the crushing process, the present invention crushes solid waste into particles with a particle size of less than 1.5 cm, limits the particle size of the counterweight raw material to a smaller range, reduces the particle size gap of each component, as to obtain evenly mixed during stirring, the density of the counterweight after solidification and molding is uniform).
Regarding claim 10, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the filler material comprises metal-based granulates (see DING at paragraphs [36]: crushes solid waste into particles; and [14]: the solid waste includes scrap metal, glass, ceramics, blast furnace slag, steel slag).
Regarding claim 11, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the elevator element is moulded in ambient pressure (see DING at paragraph [26]: pour the uniformly stirred raw materials into the prefabricated mold, and use a vibrating rod to vibrate and compact).
Regarding claim 18, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the alkalic reactance comprises sodium soluble silicate (see ARNOUT at lines 28-36, p. 20: Na,K-silicates).
Regarding claim 19, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the precursor material comprises at least one of: blast furnace slag, basic-oxygen furnace slag (BOF slag), electric-arc furnace slag (EAF slag), knockner oxygen blown maxhutte slag (KOBM slag), and casting slag (see ARNOUT at lines 17-19, p. 13: ground granulated blast furnace slag, BOF slag, AOD slag, stainless steel slag).
Regarding claim 20, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the precursor material comprises at least one of: blast furnace slag, basic-oxygen furnace slag (BOF slag), electric-arc furnace slag (EAF slag), knockner oxygen blown maxhutte slag (KOBM slag), and casting slag (see ARNOUT at lines 17-19, p. 13: ground granulated blast furnace slag, BOF slag, AOD slag, stainless steel slag).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DING in view of ARNOUT and LOISELET as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bai et al. (CN 211768666 U) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as BAI.
Regarding claim 12, DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET teaches the method as claimed in claim 1. While ARNOUT discloses a self-leveling, vibrational or pressable binder mix, where the mix is a binder, mortar or concrete, that is subsequently cured at a range of temperatures and pressures (see ARNOUT at lines 12-15, p. 5), and DING teaches compacting the mixture in the mold by means of vibrational rods (see DING at paragraph [26]), DING fails to explicitly teach moulding the elevator element by compression.
However, forming elevator element such as counterweight by utilizing hydraulic press is known in the art, as evidenced from disclosure of BAI describing a type of elevator counterweight production system (see BAI at paragraph [4]). BAI discloses that manufacturers usually use recyclable waste materials such as scrap iron and steel scraps, iron oxide, cutting slag, etc. for the resource production process of counterweights (see BAI at paragraph [2]). BAI teaches an elevator counterweight production system comprising the forming and pressing hydraulic press including a hydraulic press body and a mold cavity arranged in the hydraulic press body (see BAI at paragraph [8]). BAI also teaches the elevator counterweight production system comprising the step of cold-rolling and pressing the raw materials of the counterweight (see BAI at paragraph 18]).
Both DING and BAI disclose methods of forming elevator element using recyclable waste such as slag as raw materials, and utilizing molds for shaping the final product. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when utilizing the forming and pressing hydraulic press as disclosed by BAI in the method of forming an elevator element of DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET based on the teachings of DING describing a method comprising the step of compacting the mixture in the mold (see DING at paragraph [26]), and teachings of ARNOUT describing a vibrational or pressable binder mix, where the mix is a binder, mortar or concrete, that is subsequently cured at a range of temperatures and pressures (see ARNOUT at lines 12-15, p. 5).
MPEP §2143(I) Example rationale (G) states: “Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention”. DING as modified by ARNOUT suggests that the mixture comprising binder can be compressed by vibration or pressure (see ARNOUT at lines 12-15, p. 5); moreover, shaping the mixture into elevator element by compression is known in the art as evidenced from the disclosure of BAI describing an elevator counterweight production system comprising the forming and pressing hydraulic press including a hydraulic press body and a mold cavity arranged in the hydraulic press body (see BAI at paragraph [8]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when moulding the elevator element by compression. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the forming and pressing hydraulic press as disclosed by BAI in the method of forming an elevator element of DING as modified by ARNOUT and LOISELET.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 received on 03/31/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights