DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is a response to amendments submitted on 07/17/2026.
2. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but they are not persuasive.
See response to applicants’ arguments at the end of the action.
3. Claims 16-18 and 20-34 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 16-18, 21-24, 27-28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated/unpatentable by Sonnenmoser et al. (US 20190119068 A1, hereinafter Sonnenmoser 9068’) in view of Sonnenmoser et al. (US 20170334678 A1, hereinafter, Sonnenmoser 4678’) and further in view of Monzon et al. (US 20190389695 A1).
In regards to claim 16, Sonnenmoser 9068’ shows (Figs. 1-2) and discloses an elevator (1) comprising:
a shaft (3);
a car (5) movable in the shaft (3);
a drive (11) operatively connected to the car (5) and adapted to move the car in the shaft (3);
a brake (implicitly, see pars. 54-55, i.e. In the case of an emergency stop of this kind, the power of a brake and a drive, for example, of the passenger transport system can be switched on, so that the passenger transport system therefore arrives at a standstill as quickly as possible. When failures of other field devices having other functionalities are detected, less drastic reactions may be sufficient, such as controlled braking and stopping the passenger transport system in the context of a soft stop or merely limiting functions of the passenger transport system (for example, prohibiting an elevator system from traveling to a specific floor inside a building)) at the car (5);
a plurality of shaft doors (21) providing access to the shaft (3);
a safety control system (31) including a safe safety control unit of a first type (i.e. 13) and a safe safety control unit of a second type (i.e. 17),
wherein the safety control unit of the first type and the safety control unit of the second type are interconnected (see pars. 74-81);
wherein the safety control unit of the second type (17) collects a state of an associated one of the shaft doors and wherein the state of the associated shaft door is collected directly exclusively by the safety control unit of the second type (pars. 75, 81, i.e. field devices 17 may be door switches 19, for example, which can monitor a closure state of doors 21, in particular of floor doors, of the elevator system 2. In this case, a door switch 19 functions like a type of sensor that can detect the current closure state of the door 21 associated therewith and, as soon as the closure state changes, can signal this as a data telegram in the form of a spontaneous report, for example. The central control unit 13 and each field device 17(a), 17(b), 17(c), 17(d), 17(e) may be provided with a suitable interface or a suitable controller, in order to be able to output data via the data line 37 and the stub lines 35(a), 35(b), 35(c), 35(d), 35(e) or to receive data from said data line and stub lines. In principle, a bus system 33 implemented in this way can exchange data arbitrarily between the central control unit 13 and the field devices 17(a), 17(b), 17(c), 17(d), 17(e) and between the field devices 17(a), 17(b), 17(c), 17(d), 17(e) themselves, i.e. each device connected to the bus system 33 can, in principle, communicate with each other device, in that it transmits data having a corresponding object identifier, in this case a corresponding address ID).
Although, Sonnenmoser 9068’discloses in the case of an emergency stop of this kind, the power of a brake and a drive and a controlled braking and stopping the passenger transport system, a brake itself is not explicitly shown.
However, Sonnenmoser 4678’ discloses and shows (Fig. 1) elevator system has a drive (3), a car (5), a plurality of safety function components (9a-9p; 13a/13e) for providing safety functions at various positions, and a safety monitoring system with a plurality of safety monitoring units (13a-13e), further comprising an emergency brake switch (i.e. braking device or a capturing/catching device, pars. 48-50, 58).
Moreover, Sonnenmoser 4678’ implicitly discloses wherein the associated shaft door includes a safe door lock and/or an active door drive that operates as an actuator, and wherein the door lock and/or the door drive is controlled directly exclusively by the safety control unit of the second type (par. 49, i.e. safety monitoring units any of 13 “13d” can be interpreted safety control unit of the second type, can, for example, can serve, for example, to monitor the doors of the elevator shaft 7. Each of these safety monitoring units 13b, 13c, 13d can be connected to one or more safety function components 9f, 9g, 9h, 9i, 9m that are provided locally and are assigned to the safety monitoring units, for example in the form of a slack cable contact, an emergency brake switch of the shaft pit, a slack cable contact of a speed limiter, or similar).
Thus, given the teaching of Sonnenmoser 4678’, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit/system of Sonnenmoser 9068’ to employ a braking unit to the elevator car in order to stop or capture the elevator car when activated when an excessive speed of the elevator car has been detected or any detected malfunction, consequently improving the system security and reliability.
Sonnenmoser 9068’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 4678’ although is an obvious feature in the elevator field, and clearly discloses safety control unit of the second type (17) that collects a state of an associated one of the shaft doors and wherein the state of the associated shaft door is collected directly exclusively by the safety control unit of the second type (pars. 74-93, i.e. field devices 17 may be door switches 19, for example, which can monitor a closure state of doors 21, in particular of floor doors, of the elevator system 2. In this case, a door switch 19 functions like a type of sensor that can detect the current closure state of the door 21 associated therewith and, as soon as the closure state changes, can signal this as a data telegram in the form of a spontaneous report), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the associated shaft door includes a safe door lock and/or an active door drive that operates as an actuator, and wherein the door lock and/or the door drive is controlled directly exclusively by the safety control unit of the second type (i.e. implicitly executed by safety controller 30, since employing a separated control unit to perform a task action that could be executed by an integrated or single unit would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. ).
Moreover, Monzon discloses and shows (Figs. 1-7) a safe door lock and/or an active door drive that operates as an actuator, and wherein the door lock and/or the door drive is controlled directly exclusively by the safety control unit (see abstract and pars. 68-75, 86-87, 98, 116 i.e. The elevator safety system comprises a bidirectional safety gear (20) configured for stopping, upon activation, any movement of the elevator car (60) traveling in any of the two opposite directions; and a safety controller (30) configured for activating the bidirectional safety gear (20) when a predefined safety condition is met… mandatory switch linked to the door lock, a detection element may be provided in a door unlocking device of the landing door 11).
Thus, given the teaching of Monzon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit/system of Sonnenmoser 4678’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 9068’ to further employ a door lock as part of the safety control system and circuit to ensure the safety of the passenger or technician when the elevator runs in failure or during manual maintenance, consequently improving the system security and reliability.
In regards to claim 17, Sonnenmoser 9068’ shows (Figs. 1-2) and discloses wherein the safety control system (31) includes a plurality of the safety control units of the second type (i.e. the field devices 17(a), 17(b), 17(c), 17(d), 17(e)), and wherein each of the safety control units of the second type is mounted on an associated one of the shaft doors (Pars. 75, 81).
In regards to claim 18, Sonnenmoser 9068’ shows (Figs. 1-2) and discloses wherein the safety control unit of the first type and the safety control unit of the second type has at least one actuator associated therewith and controlled directly exclusively thereby (par. 78).
In regards to claim 21, Sonnenmoser 4678’ further discloses wherein the brake is controlled directly exclusively by the safety control unit of the first type, the safety control unit of the first type is attached to the car, and the brake is a car brake (pars. 48-50, 58).
In regards to claim 22, Sonnenmoser 9068’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 4678’ discloses wherein the safety control unit of the second type controls an actuator, and when the actuator is in an unsafe state, the safety control unit of the second type transmits status information representing the unsafe state (i.e. emergency or failure) to the safety control unit of the first type (see par. 78 @ Sonnenmoser 9068’, and pars. 15, 28, 48-50, 52, 79-80, 87-93; @ Sonnenmoser 4678’).
In regards to claims 23-24, Sonnenmoser 9068’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 4678’ discloses wherein the safety control unit of the second type transmits a signal to the safety control unit of the first type at predetermined regular intervals to check communication between the two safety control units, (see pars. 17-, 19, 21-23, 29, 58-59 @ Sonnenmoser 9068’, and pars. 15, 25, 29, 58 @ Sonnenmoser 4678’).
Sonnenmoser 9068’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 4678’ discloses time intervals of time such detection times and discovery period of regular intervals but does not specify that they are at least one second OR at least one minute.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to preset a time interval or a specific amount of time for the safety network component communication to ensure all safety units are in condition to detect a possible emergency or failure. Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose an optimum time period or time limit to ensure the validity and reliability of the safety detection system units, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 27, Sonnenmoser 4678’ further discloses wherein the safety control unit of the first type and the safety control unit (i.e. 9-13) of the second type are connected by a non-safe wireless connection (pars. 26, 48, 53).
In regards to claim 28, Sonnenmoser 4678’ further discloses wherein the safety control unit of the first type includes a non-safe interface and/or the safety control unit of the second type includes a non-safe interface, the non-safe interface of the safety control unit of the second type being connected to a shaft door drive unit of the associated shaft door, and the non-safe interface of the safety control unit of the first type being connected to at least one of a position sensor, a speed sensor and an acceleration sensor at the car (see pars. 24-26 and 48-49, i.e. us systems can provide controllable, fast, and/or reliable data transmission without each unit having to be directly wired to each other unit. Instead, the bus system can, for example, provide a shared data connection to various participants in a controllable manner. For example, a first safety monitoring unit 13a is arranged on the car 5 and is connected with a plurality of safety function components 9c, 9d, 9e, 9l, 9k, 9j that are also arranged there. The connection can be along cables, or can be wireless, and allows an exchange of data or signals. The safety function components can be detecting, and can, for example, be designed as sensors, detectors, contacts that can be actuated, or similar, so as to be able to determine operating conditions within the elevator system 1, that is to say, in this case on the car 5. The safety function components can also be activated and can, for example, be embodied as actuators, motors, or similar, in order to effect certain functions within the elevator system 1. For example, the safety function components 9c, 9d, 9e, 9l, 9k, 9j can be designed as a detecting component in the form of a capturing contact, an emergency end contact, an emergency brake switch, a car door contact, or similar, or as an activatable component, in the form of an actuator activating a braking device or a capturing device. A second safety monitoring unit 13b can, for example, be arranged on the counterweight 17. A third safety monitoring unit 13c can, for example, be arranged in an elevator shaft pit 19. A fourth safety monitoring unit 13d can serve, for example, to monitor the doors of the elevator shaft 7).
In regards to claims 30-31, Sonnenmoser 9068’ discloses method for controlling the elevator (1), the method comprising the steps of:
operating the safety control unit of the second type (i.e. 17) to collect the state of the associated shaft door by collecting a state of an actuator of the associated shaft door wherein the collected state of the actuator signals either "closed" or "not closed" as the collected state of the associated shaft door (pars. 18, 40, 49, 75, 81); and
transmitting the collected state of the associated shaft door from the safety control unit of the second type to the safety control unit of the first type (i.e. 13), (pars. 77, 80, 81, 91).
Sonnenmoser 9068’ does not explicitly disclose via a non- safe connection and wherein the non-safe connection is a wireless connection.
Howver, Sonnenmoser 4678’ further transmitting the collected state of the associated shaft door from the safety control unit of the second type to the safety control unit of the first type via a non- safe connection (pars. 26, 48-50, 53).
Thus, given the teaching of Sonnenmoser 4678’, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit/system of Sonnenmoser 9068’ to employ wireless connection as to reduce the complexity of the wiring in the elevator system when for example wireless data transmission between an elevator car and an elevator shaft, could, make possible an elevator system without travelling cables.
In regards to claim 20, Sonnenmoser 9068’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 4678’ discloses wherein the state collected by the safety control unit of the second type is a state of the door lock and/or the door drive and the state signals that the associated shaft door is closed or non-closed (see pars. 75 @ Sonnenmoser 9068’, and par. 48-49 @ Sonnenmoser 9068’).
6. Claims 25-26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated/unpatentable by Sonnenmoser et al. (US 20190119068 A1, hereinafter Sonnenmoser 9068’) in view of Sonnenmoser et al. (US 20170334678 A1, hereinafter, Sonnenmoser 4678’) and further in view of NAKARI et al. (CN 109516327 A).
In regards to claims 25-26 and 29, Sonnenmoser 9068’ discloses wherein the safety control system includes a safety control unit of a third type connected to the safety control unit of the first type and wherein the safety control unit of the third type and the safety control unit of the first type are connected by a cable connection (i.e. plurality of field devices 17 may be part of a safety circuit 27 and safety monitoring unit 31 integrated therein is connected to each field device 17(a), 17(b), 17(c), 17(d), 17(e) via a common data line 37…. The cabling 29 and controllers provided in the field devices 17 and/or the central control unit 13 can form a bus system 33 together in this case, via which bus system data telegrams can be exchanged between the participants of a data communication. (interpretated as the cable) and wherein the safety control unit of the first type includes a safe interface being connected to at least one of a slack cable sensor, an actuator for actuating the brake and a safety control unit (pars. 24, 40, 81).
Sonnenmoser 9068’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 4678’ does not explicitly disclose wherein the safety control system includes a safety control unit of a third type connected to the safety control unit of the first type, the safety control unit of the third type adapted to implement a Safe Torque Off state of the drive, and wherein the safety control unit of the first type includes a safe interface being connected to at least one of a slack cable sensor, a load measurement sensor, an actuator for actuating the brake and a safety control unit of a third type adapted to implement a Safe Torque Off state of the drive.
However, NAKARI further discloses qn electric motor drive of the transport conveyor 40, preferably an elevator. the elevator comprises a safety controller 14. Safety controller 14 has a safety switch 13 (safety relay), providing safe signal is electric motor driver 40, the safe interface 12. safety switch 13 based on elevator safety state to control, for example, based on the state of the safety contact of the elevator safety chain. electric motor driver 40, the safe interface 12 connected to the second isolation power supply 42, the second isolation power supply 42 may also be evaluated as A safety circuit of the electric motor, wherein the safety control system includes a safety control unit of a third type connected to the safety control unit of the first type, the safety control unit of the third type adapted to implement a Safe Torque Off state of the drive and wherein the safety control unit of the first type includes a safe interface being connected to at least one of a slack cable sensor, a load measurement sensor, an actuator for actuating the brake and a safety control unit of a third type adapted to implement a Safe Torque Off state of the drive (i.e. electric motor drive also comprises a safe signal interface adapted to receiving safe signal from the safety controller of the elevator, the safety signal for control for isolating power supply circuit of STO (closing the safe torque), which is. the electric motor controller of the control pulse transfer/cut to at least some power switch of the inverter is safety circuit. isolating power supply further supplies power for the brake controller of the elevator brake. Typically, for safety reasons, an elevator and an escalator with two brakes. A reference first bus of DC link in the electric motor controller, the bus generally is a negative bus of the DC link. The term "reference" one refers to the motor controller of the terminal connected to the first bus of the DC link, preferably a negative bus of the DC link. In addition, at least one STO circuit connection between each power switch of at least one half-bridge of electric motor controller and inverter. STO circuit also reference first bus of the DC link, preferably a negative electrode bus. In addition, as described above, the electric motor driver has a circuit for STO (electric) power supply, the power supply connection between the safe signal interface and the STO circuit so that the input end of electrical source to isolate output end of power supply reference and the motor controller with reference to the same DC link bus, which preferably means that the negative bus of the DC link. the power supply of the electrically isolated power form each STO circuit according to the state of the safety signal received in the safe signal interface to transmit or cut off electric motor controller of the control pulse. This means that the safety signal state of elevator safety controller, electrically isolated power supply on or off, so the electric motor also can run according to the control pulse of the electric motor controller-or if the STO circuit cuts off the control pulse is then stopped. Generally, if the safety state of the elevator opening, namely there is no security-related event, switches on the isolated power supply. On the other hand, if the elevator in any safety problem, immediately closing the isolation power supply, these safety problems through the safety controller to the security interface, such as by closing state of the safety signal. If the power off, which always causes the elevator stops, see Description and Figs. 1-3).
Thus, given the teaching of NAKARI, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit/system of Sonnenmoser 4678’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 9068’ to further employ STO circuit so the safety signal state of elevator safety controller, electrically isolated power supply on or off, so the electric motor also can run according to the control pulse of the electric motor controller-or if the STO circuit cuts off the control pulse is then stopped, consequently improving the system security and reliability.
7. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated/unpatentable by Sonnenmoser et al. (US 20190119068 A1, hereinafter Sonnenmoser 9068’) in view of Sonnenmoser et al. (US 20170334678 A1, hereinafter, Sonnenmoser 4678’) and further in view of Herkel et al. (US 20180162692 A1).
In regards to claim 32, Sonnenmoser 4678’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 9068’ further discloses comprising the steps of: receiving the transmitted collected state by the safety control unit of the first type (i.e. 9); (see pars. 48-50 @ Sonnenmoser 4678’), but Sonnenmoser 4678’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 9068’ does not explicitly discloses enabling an opening of the brake when the received collected state signals "closed" by the safety control unit of the first type releasing the brake; and blocking an opening of the brake by the safety control unit of the first type when the received collected state signals "not closed".
However, Herkel discloses and shows (Figs. 1-3) enabling an opening of the brake when the received collected state signals "closed" by the safety control unit of the first type releasing the brake; and blocking an opening of the brake by the safety control unit of the first type when the received collected state signals "not closed". (i.e. elevator system 1 comprises at least one hoistway door 10, 11 allowing access to the hoistway 4; an elevator car 6, which is configured to move along the hoistway 4; at least one safety 16, which is attached to the elevator car and configured to stop any movement of the elevator car when activated; an electronic safety actuator 18, which is configured to activate and deactivate the at least one safety 16; and a door safety switch 20, which is configured to monitor the at least one hoistway door 10, 11 and which is connected with the electronic safety actuator in order to allow activating the at least one safety 16, if the door safety switch 20 detects that the at least one hoistway door 10, 11 is not closed, … the electronic safety actuator 18 immediately triggers I activates the at least one safety 16 (step 300) stopping and preventing any movement of the elevator car 6 in order to ensure the safety of the mechanic 22 which has entered or is about to enter the pit 2. see abstract and pars. 28-29, 34, 38, 49-50, 54).
Thus, given the teaching of Herkel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit/system of Sonnenmoser 4678’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 9068’ to further control the opening and/or closing of the brake action as to avoid risk of a person present in the hoistway, in particular within the pit, is hit by the elevator car. However, the at least one safety may be activated for stopping any further movement of the elevator car if the elevator car comes close to the at least one hoistway door I bottom of the hoistway so that any further movement of the elevator car would be dangerous for a person residing within the hoistway, consequently improving the system security and reliability.
8. Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated/unpatentable by Sonnenmoser et al. (US 20190119068 A1, hereinafter Sonnenmoser 9068’) in view of Sonnenmoser et al. (US 20170334678 A1, hereinafter, Sonnenmoser 4678’) in view of Herkel et al. (US 20180162692 A1) and further in view of Ikawa et al. (US 20110302466 A1).
In regards to claim 33, Sonnenmoser 4678’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 9068’ discloses comprising the steps of:
repeatedly transmitting a check communication signal (i.e. test telegram) by the safety control unit of the second type to the safety control unit of the first type at a defined time interval, determining that a communication capability between the safety control unit of the first type and the safety control unit of the second type functions upon receipt of the check communication signal by the safety control unit of the first type, (see pars. 17-, 19, 21-23, 29, 45, 58-59 @ Sonnenmoser 9068’, and pars. 15, 25, 29, 58 @ Sonnenmoser 4678’);
determining a fault condition of the communication capability between the safety control unit of the first type and the safety control unit of the second type (see pars. 10-11, 28-23, 79-80, 82-83, 87-93 @ Sonnenmoser 9068’, and pars. 48-50, i.e. emergency situation @ Sonnenmoser 4678’).
Sonnenmoser 4678’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 9068’ and Herkel does not explicitly disclosed when the check communication signal is not received by the safety control unit of the first type after a period of time that is longer than the defined time interval.
However, Ikawa further discloses a signal transmission device for elevator in accordance with Embodiment 1 of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 1, the signal transmission device 1 for elevator in accordance with Embodiment 1 is provided with a control panel node 2 disposed, as a master node, in an elevator control unit, at least an input/output node 3 disposed, as a slave node, in each of a hoistway, elevator halls, and a cage, a safety network (a communication network) for connecting between the nodes 2 and 3 via communications, sensors and switches 5, and an elevator stopping unit 6, and discloses when the check communication signal is not received by the safety control unit of the first type after a period of time that is longer than the defined time interval (pars. 6-7, 34, 38, 62, 65, 67, 72, 75, 80-83).
Thus, given the teaching of Ikawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit/system of Sonnenmoser 4678’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 9068’ and Herkel to further judge if communication signal is not received by the safety control unit after a period of time that is longer than the defined time interval as to verify if there is any communication failure or delay that may be produced by a system malfunction, so the signal transmission device becomes able to detect the error from a comparison with another safety data packet which has been received properly. As a result, the safety of the elevator can be improved.
In regards to claim 34, Sonnenmoser 4678’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 9068’ discloses discloses time intervals of time such detection times and discovery period of regular intervals but does not specify that they are at least one second OR at least one minute, and
Ikawa further discloses discloses when the check communication signal is not received by the safety control unit of the first type after a period of time that is longer than the defined time interval (see Figs. 7-8, 10-13, pars. 6-7, 34, 38, 62, 65, 67, 72, 75, 80-83).
Although, Sonnenmoser 4678’ as modified by Sonnenmoser 9068’, Herkel and Ikawa does not explicitly specify wherein the defined time interval is at least 2 minutes.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to preset a time interval or a specific amount of time for the safety network component communication to ensure all safety units are in condition to detect a possible emergency or failure. Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose an optimum time period or time limit to ensure the validity and reliability of the safety detection system units, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed on 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner believes that the prior arts made of record still read on the added limitations.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding the claims, that Monzon does not disclose a "safety control unit of the second type" - i.e., a door- associated safe unit - at all, much less one that controls a door lock and/or door drive, and the actuator for opening the door can be controlled exclusively by the at least one safety control unit the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firs of all, the examiner respectfully reminds the applicant that claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. “Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Moreover, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d, 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)”. (Refer to Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Eighth Edition Revision 8: July 2010).
The Examiner still considers the prior-arts alone and/or combination each clearly having all structures and components as claimed. Thus all the limitations of the claims will be considered met so long as the device of the prior art meets all structural limitations. The prior art apparatus as identified in the rejected claims are also capable of performing all the claimed intended use and/or desired functional language. Therefore, all the limitations as claimed are still met or anticipated by the prior arts as pointed out in the previous office actions and in this final office action. It is well settled that anticipation law requires distinction be made between invention described or taught and invention claimed. It does not require that the reference "teach" what subject patent application teaches, it is only necessary that the claim under attack, as construed by the Court, "read on" something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in reference, or are "fully met" by it. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 218 USPQ 781,789 (CAFC 1983). Moreover, the Claims8-19 and 37 are drawn to an apparatus must distinguish from prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danlv, 120 USPQ 528 (CCPA 1959) and MPEP 2114.
Sonnenmoser already discloses wherein a safety control unit of the second type (17) collects a state of an associated one of the shaft doors and wherein the state of the associated shaft door is collected directly exclusively by the safety control unit of the second type (pars. 75, 81, i.e. field devices 17 may be door switches 19, for example, which can monitor a closure state of doors 21, in particular of floor doors, of the elevator system 2. In this case, a door switch 19 functions like a type of sensor that can detect the current closure state of the door 21 associated therewith and, as soon as the closure state changes, can signal this as a data telegram in the form of a spontaneous report, for example. The central control unit 13 and each field device 17(a), 17(b), 17(c), 17(d), 17(e) may be provided with a suitable interface or a suitable controller, in order to be able to output data via the data line 37 and the stub lines 35(a), 35(b), 35(c), 35(d), 35(e) or to receive data from said data line and stub lines. In principle, a bus system 33 implemented in this way can exchange data arbitrarily between the central control unit 13 and the field devices 17(a), 17(b), 17(c), 17(d), 17(e) and between the field devices 17(a), 17(b), 17(c), 17(d), 17(e) themselves, i.e. each device connected to the bus system 33 can, in principle, communicate with each other device, in that it transmits data having a corresponding object identifier, in this case a corresponding address ID).
Moreover, Sonnenmoser 4678’ implicitly discloses wherein the associated shaft door includes a safe door lock and/or an active door drive that operates as an actuator, and wherein the door lock and/or the door drive is controlled directly exclusively by the safety control unit of the second type (par. 49, i.e. safety monitoring units any of 13 “13d” can be interpreted safety control unit of the second type, can, for example, can serve, for example, to monitor the doors of the elevator shaft 7. Each of these safety monitoring units 13b, 13c, 13d can be connected to one or more safety function components 9f, 9g, 9h, 9i, 9m that are provided locally and are assigned to the safety monitoring units, for example in the form of a slack cable contact, an emergency brake switch of the shaft pit, a slack cable contact of a speed limiter, or similar).
Monzon was only brought to further evidence that employing a door lock mechanism or actuator as part a safety control unit of regardless of being separated unit or a single unit executing the same action is was implicitly executed by safety controller 30, since employing a separated control unit to perform a task action that could be executed by an integrated or single unit would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Wherein Monzon discloses and shows (Figs. 1-7) a safe door lock and/or an active door drive that operates as an actuator, and wherein the door lock and/or the door drive is controlled directly exclusively by the safety control unit (see abstract and pars. 68-75, 86-87, 98, 116 i.e. The elevator safety system comprises a bidirectional safety gear (20) configured for stopping, upon activation, any movement of the elevator car (60) traveling in any of the two opposite directions; and a safety controller (30) configured for activating the bidirectional safety gear (20) when a predefined safety condition is met… mandatory switch linked to the door lock, a detection element may be provided in a door unlocking device of the landing door 11).
In response to applicant’s argument regarding that prior arts do not disclose a "safety control unit of the second type" NAKARI does not disclose the claimed distributed architecture of safe safety control units of different types - in particular, it does not disclose a distinct "safety control unit of a third type" that is connected to a safety control unit of the first type, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained before Sonnenmoser already discloses wherein a safety control unit of the second type (17) while Sonnenmoser 4678’ implicitly discloses wherein the associated shaft door includes a safe door lock and/or an active door drive that operates as an actuator, and wherein the door lock and/or the door drive is controlled directly exclusively by the safety control unit of the second type (par. 49, i.e. safety monitoring units any of 13 “13d” can be interpreted safety control unit of the second type, can, for example, can serve, for example, to monitor the doors of the elevator shaft 7. Each of these safety monitoring units 13b, 13c, 13d can be connected to one or more safety function components 9f, 9g, 9h, 9i, 9m that are provided locally and are assigned to the safety monitoring units, for example in the form of a slack cable contact, an emergency brake switch of the shaft pit, a slack cable contact of a speed limiter, or similar). This is it, employing a separated control unit to perform a task action that could be executed by an integrated or single unit would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding that prior arts do not disclose that the first-type unit receives the transmitted collected state, enables an opening of the brake when the received collected state signals "closed" - specifically, by the first-type unit releasing the brake - and blocks an opening of the brake when the received collected state signals "not closed, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Sonnonmoser already disclose the safety function components 9c, 9d, 9e, 9l, 9k, 9j can be designed as a detecting component in the form of a capturing contact, an emergency end contact, an emergency brake switch, a car door contact, or similar, or as an activatable component, in the form of an actuator activating a braking device or a capturing device. Braking devices are by definition employed in Elevator systems in the form of safety units, that stops and holds an elevator car in place using a fail-safe, during different modes such as normal operation, power loss or fail-safe design, where a brake release device is an emergency tool or automated system used to manually or electrically lift the brake pads off the traction machine's brake wheel so the elevator car can move during a power outage or rescue operation.
NAKARI further discloses qn electric motor drive of the transport conveyor 40, preferably an elevator. the elevator comprises a safety controller 14. Safety controller 14 has a safety switch 13 (safety relay), providing safe signal is electric motor driver 40, the safe interface 12. safety switch 13 based on elevator safety state to control, for example, based on the state of the safety contact of the elevator safety chain. electric motor driver 40, the safe interface 12 connected to the second isolation power supply 42, the second isolation power supply 42 may also be evaluated as A safety circuit of the electric motor, wherein the safety control system includes a safety control unit of a third type connected to the safety control unit of the first type, the safety control unit of the third type adapted to implement a Safe Torque Off state of the drive and wherein the safety control unit of the first type includes a safe interface being connected to at least one of a slack cable sensor, a load measurement sensor, an actuator for actuating the brake and a safety control unit of a third type adapted to implement a Safe Torque Off state of the drive (i.e. electric motor drive also comprises a safe signal interface adapted to receiving safe signal from the safety controller of the elevator, the safety signal for control for isolating power supply circuit of STO (closing the safe torque), which is. the electric motor controller of the control pulse transfer/cut to at least some power switch of the inverter is safety circuit. isolating power supply further supplies power for the brake controller of the elevator brake. Typically, for safety reasons, an elevator and an escalator with two brakes. A reference first bus of DC link in the electric motor controller, the bus generally is a negative bus of the DC link. The term "reference" one refers to the motor controller of the terminal connected to the first bus of the DC link, preferably a negative bus of the DC link. In addition, at least one STO circuit connection between each power switch of at least one half-bridge of electric motor controller and inverter. STO circuit also reference first bus of the DC link, preferably a negative electrode bus. In addition, as described above, the electric motor driver has a circuit for STO (electric) power supply, the power supply connection between the safe signal interface and the STO circuit so that the input end of electrical source to isolate output end of power supply reference and the motor controller with reference to the same DC link bus, which preferably means that the negative bus of the DC link. the power supply of the electrically isolated power form each STO circuit according to the state of the safety signal received in the safe signal interface to transmit or cut off electric motor controller of the control pulse. This means that the safety signal state of elevator safety controller, electrically isolated power supply on or off, so the electric motor also can run according to the control pulse of the electric motor controller-or if the STO circuit cuts off the control pulse is then stopped. Generally, if the safety state of the elevator opening, namely there is no security-related event, switches on the isolated power supply. On the other hand, if the elevator in any safety problem, immediately closing the isolation power supply, these safety problems through the safety controller to the security interface, such as by closing state of the safety signal. If the power off, which always causes the elevator stops, see Description and Figs. 1-3).
Hence, it is an obvious feature to further employ STO circuit so the safety signal state of elevator safety controller, electrically isolated power supply on or off, so the electric motor also can run according to the control pulse of the electric motor controller-or if the STO circuit cuts off the control pulse is then stopped, consequently improving the system security and reliability.
Moreover, In response to applicant’s argument regarding that the Examiner's treatment of the "at least 2 minutes" limitation of Claim 34 as a mere design choice is therefore not supported: the applied art teaches toward short intervals for prompt safety- data delivery, providing no rationale to arrive at the claimed long check interval. Herkel is silent as to any communication-check signal and does not remedy this deficiency, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Sonnenmoser already discloses a failure detection time of this kind is specified by regulators, for example, which require that failures in individual field devices, for example, which are essential in particular for the safety of the passenger transport system, can be detected very quickly, i.e. within a short space of time… In conventional passenger transport systems, a functionality of field devices and the data transfer established via the bus system is usually monitored by the central control unit requesting, at regular time intervals, each individual field device via the bus system individually by means of a request telegram and the requested field device thereupon sending a response telegram back to the central control unit. In a failure detection method of this kind, for each field device, a request telegram must therefore be transmitted in each case to the field device via the bus system and a response telegram must be transmitted from the field device back to the central control unit via the bus system.
Hence, as any control system must be tine related controlled, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to preset a time interval or a specific amount of time for the safety network component communication to ensure all safety units are in condition to detect a possible emergency or failure. Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose an optimum time period or time limit to ensure the validity and reliability of the safety detection system units, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner and the additional related prior arts made of record that are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure to further show the general state of the art.
Conclusion
10. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L CARRASQUILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7879. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday (9am to 5pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE L CARRASQUILLO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Prosecution Insights