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.
Claim(s) 10-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suda (JP 2010116229 A) in view of JP (JP 5710109 B2) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translations).
Regarding claim 10, Suda discloses a method for evaluating information (e.g. Abstract) about a current location of a car (e.g. Fig. 1: 10) in a shaft (e.g. Fig. 1: 2) of an elevator (e.g. Fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of:
measuring a distance (e.g. Fig. 2 & p. 5) between a car reference position at the car (e.g. Fig. 2: P1-P4) and a shaft reference position (e.g. Fig. 2: 41-44) in the shaft using a laser distance measuring device (e.g. Fig. 2: 11-14, 71-74); and
evaluating the information about the current location of the car taking into account the measured distance (e.g. Fig. 2 & p. 5: determine height of the car by calculating time differences between emitted laser beam and received laser beam); and
controlling the elevator using the evaluated information (e.g. p. 5: precisely control the height position of the car based on height position information).
Suda fails to disclose, but JP teaches acquiring laser quality data from the laser distance measuring device, the laser quality data representing a quality of a laser beam detected by the laser distance measuring device upon measuring the distance (e.g. p.3-4: compare light intensity data with threshold, i.e. quality, to evaluate distance measurement; wherein distance measurement determines distance obtained by time difference measured between light emission from laser beam and reflected light from measured object).
As evidently shown in paragraph [0069] of Yamazaki (US 2016/0084649 A1) and paragraph [0006, 0016] of Toutaoui (US 2019/0210832 A1), accuracy of optical sensor for determining position of an elevator car can be affected by environmental factors, such as dirt or dust, is known in the art.
Suda discloses a time difference distance measurement method.
And, JP teaches accuracy of time difference distance measurement method (e.g. p. 3-4: rising edge detection) decreases as light intensity decreases, and it is advantageous to determine distance by selecting one of the methods (e.g. p. 3-: rising edge detection and zero cross detection) based on detected light intensity to ensure distance detection accuracy.
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 Suda with the teachings of Li to further evaluate the light intensity of the laser beam to select a distance measurement method with high accuracy.
Regarding claim 11, JP teaches the laser quality data represent an intensity of the laser beam detected by the laser distance measuring device upon measuring the distance (e.g. p. 3-4).
Regarding claim 12, JP teaches, when the laser quality data indicate that the quality of the detected laser beam is below a predefined lower limit, attributing the information about the current location of the car to be of insufficient reliability to use for controlling the elevator (e.g. p. 3-4: compare received light intensity with threshold to determine a distance measurement method with high accuracy; thus, implies attributing one of the methods is not reliable).
Regarding claim 13, JP teaches, when the laser quality data indicate that the quality of the detected laser beam suddenly decreases by more than a predefined difference limit, attributing the information about the current location of the car to be of insufficient reliability to use for controlling the elevator (e.g. p. 3-4: compare with a threshold).
Regarding claim 14, JP teaches temporarily deactivating the laser distance measuring device, and measuring the distance and acquiring the laser quality data after reactivating the laser distance measuring device (e.g. p. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Suda discloses a method for operating an elevator comprising controlling functions of the elevator based on information about a current location of a car in a shaft of the elevator and evaluating the information using the method according to Claim 10 (e.g. Abstract & p. 1 & Figs. 1-2: control traveling of the elevator car based on determined position).
Regarding claim 17, Suda discloses a controller (e.g. Fig. 100) for determining information about a current location of a car in a shaft of an elevator, wherein the controller is configured to at least one of implement and control the elevator using the method according to Claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 18, Suda discloses an elevator (e.g. Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a car (e.g. Fig. 1: 10);
a shaft (e.g. Fig. 1: 2);
a laser distance measuring device (e.g. Fig. 2: 11-14, 71-74) adapted to measure a distance (e.g. Fig. 2 & p. 5: determine height of the car by calculating time differences between emitted laser beam and received laser beam) between a car reference position (e.g. Fig. 2: P1-P4) at the car and a shaft reference position (e.g. Fig. 2: 41-44) in the shaft; and
a controller (e.g. Fig. 2: 100) according to Claim 17 controlling the elevator.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suda (JP 2010116229 A) in view of JP (JP 5710109 B2) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Yang (KR 101682904 B1) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translations).
Regarding claim 15, Suda and JP in combination fails to disclose the laser distance measuring device is temporarily deactivated when the car is stopped within the shaft, and the laser distance measuring device is reactivated when the car is started to be displaced within the shaft.
However, Yang teaches it is advantage for power saving to shut off laser position sensor when not needed (p. 3 & p. 6).
Therefore, combination of Suda, JP and Yang teaches only energize laser sensor when the elevator car is moving so as to save power consumed by sensor because the laser sensor is for determining car position during traveling.
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 Suda and JP to energize laser sensor only when needed as taught by the teachings of Yang so as to achieve saving on power consumption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10, JP (at least in p. 2-3) teaches one of the distance measurements calculated by zero cross detection method and rising edge detection method is selected based on received light intensity data (i.e. laser quality data). The received light intensity is not being used for distance measurement as argued by applicant but rather being used to select distance measurements that have already been calculated based on zero cross detection method and rising edge detection method.
In addition, claims 11-13 are unpatentable at least in view of foregoing reasons and rejections set forth in current Office action.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 14, JP (at least in p. 6) teaches a laser beam emission stop process is performed in safety mode. This evidently proves that applicant’s argument regarding the laser beam being under continuous emission is incorrect.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 15, the examiner disagrees with the arguments because Yang is solely cited to teach it is known to deactivate laser position sensor when it is not needed to save power, and Suda and JP in combination discloses the general aspect of the claimed invention and limitations as recited in the claim(s). “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references” see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); n re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In addition, claims 16-18 are unpatentable at least in view of foregoing reasons and rejections set forth in current Office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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