DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MIZUNO JPH07117957A (IDS supplied prior art).
Regarding claim 19, MIZUNO discloses
A dual machine arrangement for a hoist assembly of an elevator system (figs. 12 and 15), the dual machine arrangement comprising: a first machine comprising a first motor (item 15) and a first sheave (item 181), which is rotatable by the first motor in a first direction; a second machine comprising a second motor (item 15) and a second sheave (another item 181), which is rotatable by the second motor in a second direction, which is a reverse of the first direction [0064-0065];
a flexible coupling (item 40) by which respective ends of the first sheave and the second sheave are connected; and drive circuitry (item 56 in fig. 15) configured to synchronize reverse operations of the first motor and the second motor to raise or lower a load (item 4) by identifying an asynchronous condition across the flexible coupling of the reverse operations of the first and second motors and correcting for the asynchronous condition [0064-0065, 0073] (It should be noted that the motors are interconnected by the joint to operate synchronously in order to correct asynchronous condition, which is an inherent feature).
Regarding claim 1, MIZUNO discloses
A dual machine arrangement for a hoist assembly of an elevator system, the dual machine arrangement comprising: dual machines (item 15 in fig. 15. There are two machines), each comprising a motor and a sheave, which is rotatable by the motor; a coupling by which respective ends of the sheaves of the dual machines are connected; and drive circuitry configured to synchronize reverse operations of the dual machines to raise or lower a load (see claim 19 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 10, MIZUNO discloses
A dual machine arrangement for a hoist assembly of an elevator system, the dual machine arrangement comprising: a first machine comprising a first motor and a first sheave, which is rotatable by the first motor in a first direction; a second machine comprising a second motor and a second sheave, which is rotatable by the second motor in a second direction, which is a reverse of the first direction; a coupling (item 40) [0065] by which respective ends of the first sheave and the second sheave are connected; and drive circuitry configured to synchronize reverse operations of the first motor and the second motor to raise or lower a load (see claim 19 rejection for detail).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, MIZUNO discloses
, wherein the load is an elevator car [0065].
Regarding claims 3 and 12, MIZUNO discloses
wherein each of the motors of the dual machines comprises a radial airgap motor [0060] (permanent magnet synchronous motors are a radial airgap motor).
Regarding claim 4, MIZUNO discloses
, wherein the coupling comprises a flange (joints) that is secured to each of the respective ends of the sheaves of the dual machines [0065].
Regarding claim 5, MIZUNO discloses
, wherein the coupling comprises a sleeve (joints) that is secured to each of the respective ends of the sheaves of the dual machines [0065].
Regarding claims 6 and 15, MIZUNO discloses
, wherein the coupling is flexible in at least a torsional axis [0045] (Torque burden is reduced to half. Torque introduces a torsional axis).
Regarding claim 13, MIZUNO discloses
, wherein the coupling comprises a flange that is secured to each of the respective ends of the first sheave and the second sheave [0065].
Regarding claim 14, MIZUNO discloses
, wherein the coupling comprises a sleeve that is secured to each of the respective ends of the first sheave and the second sheave [0065].
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIZUNO.
Regarding claim 20, MIZUNO does not explicitly say “wherein the correcting comprises one of temporarily speeding up a lagging one of the first motor and the second motor and temporarily slowing down a leading one of the first motor and the second motor.” However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use lead and lag technique in MIZUNO’s teachings to operate the motor synchronously.
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIZUNO in a view of AYANO JP 2004168487 A.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, MIZUNO does not disclose but AYANO discloses, wherein the drive circuitry comprises: an encoder (fig. 1, item 3) coupled to one of the dual machines (item 1) and configured to output a synchronization signal for synchronizing the other of the dual machines with the one of the dual machines; and drives (items 6 and 7) respectively disposed to command the reverse operations (counterclockwise) of the dual machines based in part on the synchronization signal [0011, 0014, 0019, 0020].
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 encoder to output the synchronization signal and to command the reverse operations as taught by AYANO in MIZUNO’s teachings to increase efficiency and achieve synchronization (AYANO’s paragraph 0014)
Regarding claims 8 and 17, MIZUNO does not disclose but AYANO discloses, wherein the drives respectively power the reverse operations of the motors of the dual machines [0019].
Regarding claims 9 and 18, MIZUNO does not disclose but AYANO discloses, wherein the drive circuitry is configured to identify an asynchronous condition of the reverse operations of the dual machines and to correct for the asynchronous condition [0014, 0019, 0020].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adifon (EP 1591403 A2) discloses a traction elevator having multiple machines.
ANDO (WO 2006/033146 A1) discloses an elevator with a reversing sheave.
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