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 § 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.
Claims 17-19, 23, 24, 29-33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeze et al. US 2019/0084799 A1 in a view of JP6247888 B2.
Regarding claim 17, Leeze discloses
A method for operating an elevator for maintenance, wherein the elevator includes a car (figs. 1 and 3A, item 103), an elevator shaft (item 117, 317) with the car being displaceable along the elevator shaft, a drive (item 115) for displacing the car [0019-0021, 0025], a plurality of shaft doors (item 227) [0010], at least one of the shaft doors being arranged at each of multiple floors including a lowermost floor and an uppermost floor for opening and closing access to the car (fig. 3A shows a lowermost floor 325 and an uppermost floor 325. There are multiple item 325) [0027].
Leeze does not disclose but JP”888 discloses
and an elevator control unit (control panel), the method comprising the steps of: the elevator control unit receives a start-maintenance-request sent by a technician [0021-0023]; the elevator control unit switches from a normal operation mode to a maintenance mode in response to the received start-maintenance-request [0023-0024]; the elevator control unit receives a stop-maintenance-request sent by the technician [0028]; the elevator control unit checks whether a person is within a predefined danger zone [0025]; and the elevator control unit switches from the maintenance mode back into the normal operation mode when the elevator control unit concludes there is no person within the predefined danger zone [0028, 0034] (It should be noted that the worker returns from the pit section 4A to the landing 15. Therefore, it is imperative that no person is in the pit before switches to the normal mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the elevator control unit to switch the modes as disclosed by JP”888 in Leeze’s teachings to improve the safety of workers who perform elevator inspection work (JP”888 paragraph 0006)
Regarding claim 18, JP”888 discloses
wherein the technician sends the start-maintenance-request and the stop-maintenance-request from a mobile electronic device [0021-0023].
Regarding claim 19, JP”888 discloses
wherein the predefined danger zone is at least a portion of the elevator shaft [0025].
Regarding claim 23, JP”888 discloses
wherein the step of checking whether a person is within the predefined danger zone includes at least one of the steps of: verifying the technician is present within the car or on a floor after the elevator control unit receives the start-maintenance-request from the technician and before the elevator control unit switches from the normal operation mode to the maintenance mode [0025]; and verifying the technician is present within the car or on a floor after the elevator control unit receives the stop-maintenance-request from the technician and before the elevator control unit switches from the maintenance mode back into the normal operation mode [0034].
Regarding claim 24, JP”888 discloses wherein verifying the presence of the technician in the car or on a floor is performed by identifying the technician by at least one of: displaying a code on a screen in the car and/or on the floor and requiring the technician to scan the code with a mobile electronic device; and using a camera and/or a near field communication device in the car and/or on the floor to identify the technician [0025].
Regarding claim 29, JP”888 discloses wherein in the maintenance mode, the elevator control unit prevents the drive from displacing the car and/or an elevator brake is engaged before the technician is granted access to the elevator shaft [0014].
Regarding claim 30, JP”888 discloses including initiating verification of a braking capability after the maintenance mode was left and/or before maintenance mode is entered by performing a static brake test on a brake of the elevator [0014].
Regarding claim 31, a combination of JP”888 and LEEZE discloses
An elevator comprising: a car displaceable along an elevator shaft; a drive for displacing the car along the elevator shaft; an elevator control unit; a plurality of shaft doors, at least one of the shaft doors being arranged at each of multiple floors, each of the shaft doors having an associated active door drive for opening and closing the shaft door and/or an active door lock that is enabled and disabled by the elevator control unit; and wherein the elevator control unit is adapted to perform the method according to Claim 17 (see claim 17 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 32, a combination of JP”888 and LEEZE discloses
A computer program product comprising non-transitory computer readable instructions for performing the method according to Claim 17, which instructions: when executed by a processor in the elevator control unit instruct the elevator control unit to perform the method; and when executed by a processor (a personal computer) in a data communication device (communication network) instruct the data communication device to transmit the start-maintenance-request and the stop-maintenance-request [0019-0021].
Regarding claim 33, a combination of JP”888 and LEEZE discloses
A computer readable medium comprising the computer program product according to Claim 32 stored thereon JP”888 [0019-0021].
Regarding claim 34, a combination of JP”888 and LEEZE discloses
A method for operating an elevator for maintenance, wherein the elevator includes a car, an elevator shaft with the car being displaceable along the elevator shaft, a drive for displacing the car, a plurality of shaft doors, each of the shaft doors being arranged at an associated one of multiple floors including a lowermost floor an 1 an uppermost floor for opening and closing access to the car, and an elevator control un t, the method comprising the following steps: the elevator control unit receives a start-maintenance-request sent by a technician using a mobile electronic device (JP”888 mobile terminal in paragraph 0021); the elevator control unit switches from a normal operation mode to a maintenance mode in response to the received start-maintenance-request; the elevator control unit receives a stop-maintenance-request sent by the technician using the mobile electronic device; the elevator control unit checks whether a person is within a predefined danger zone in the elevator shaft; and the elevator control unit switches from the maintenance mode back into the normal operation mode when the elevator control unit concludes there is no person within the predefined danger zone (see claim 17 rejection for detail).
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEEZE in a view of JP”888 and further in a view of Fauconnet et al. US 2018/0229967 A1.
Regarding claim 25, a combination of LEEZE and JP”888 does not disclose but Fauconnet discloses wherein the start maintenance- request sent by the technician is a request to enter the elevator shaft at a specific shaft door (during step 604), and wherein the method includes a step of displacing the car to a pre-defined position in proximity of the specific shaft door [0062-0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enter the elevator shaft at a specific shaft door as disclosed by Fauconnet in LEEZE and JP”888 teachings to perform maintenance operation.
Regarding claim 27, a combination of LEEZE and JP”888 does not disclose but Fauconnet discloses wherein at least one of the shaft doors has an active door drive for opening and closing the at least one shaft door and/or an active door lock for locking and unlocking the at least one shaft door and wherein the method further comprises the steps of: unlocking the at least one shaft door by the active door lock and/or opening the at least one shaft door by the active door drive thereby enabling the technician to access the elevator shaft after the maintenance mode was entered; and/or closing the at least one shaft door by the active door drive and/or locking the at least one shaft door by the active door lock thereby preventing the technician access to the elevator shaft before the maintenance mode is left [0062-0067, 0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to open and close the at least one shaft door as disclosed by Fauconnet in LEEZE and JP”888 teachings to perform maintenance operation.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEEZE in a view of JP”888 and further in a view of Sirigu et al. US 8,162,108 B2.
Regarding claim 26, a combination of LEEZE and JP”888 does not disclose but Sirigu et al. disclose including a step of restricting displacement of the car in solely: an upward direction when the maintenance mode was requested at the lowermost floor; and/or a downward direction when the maintenance mode was requested at the uppermost floor after the stop-maintenance-request was received by the elevator control unit (column 1, lines 66-67, column 2, lines 1-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add step of restricting displacement of the car as disclosed by Sirigu in LEEZE and JP”888 teachings to provide an inspection operation which is both safe and efficient (Sirigu’s column 2, lines 28-29).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEEZE in a view of JP”888 and further in a view of KATTAINENI EP 3187449A1.
Regarding claim 28, a combination of LEEZE and JP”888 does not disclose but KATTAINENI discloses including assuring that the car is empty after the elevator control unit receives the start-maintenance-request sent by the technician and before the elevator control unit (control unit) switches from the normal operation mode to the maintenance mode [0020, 0023-0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assure that the car is empty after the elevator control unit receives the start-maintenance-request sent by the technician as disclosed by KATTAINEN in LEEZE and JP”888 teachings to determine whether at least one person is present on the roof of the elevator car and/or in the elevator cabin (see KATTAINENI’s abstract section).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-22 and 35 are 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. Claims 20 and 35 disclose detail steps of checking a person.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sansevero (US 6,223,861 B1) discloses elevator hoistway access safety.
Walker (US 11,505,428 B2) discloses device and method for monitoring a maintenance mode of an elevator installation.
Sudi et al. (US 2018/0282122 A1) disclose a method of testing of an elevator safety brake system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, Jessica Han can be reached at 5712722078. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896