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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Specific claims 1 and 12 are mentioned in paragraphs 0011-0012 of the “Summary” section of the original specification. Please review the entire specification for similar issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because boxes must be textually labeled (see CFR 1.83 (o). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-8, 10-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener (EP 0980842) and Rasanen et al (US Publication 2018/0327230).
Claims 1 and 12, Wegener teaches an elevator system comprising a car 1; a counterweight 4; a hoisting member 3 connected to the car and the counterweight, a hoisting machinery including a traction sheave 2, and a free fall protection system comprising: a free fall protection member 6 connecting the car and the counterweight over at least two free fall pulleys 5/7 or pulley 17, at least one free fall protection brake acting on at least one of the free fall pulleys (fig. 1 shows brake 15 applied to pulley 5), a free fall controller 14 for controlling activation of brake 15 (as described in paragraph 0010), wherein the hoisting member 3 supports the car and the counterweight during normal operation of the elevator and the free fall protection member 6 supports the car and counterweight during an emergency (unbalanced forces on the traction sheave 2 of the hoisting member 3) as described in paragraphs 0009-0010. Additionally, we can see the tension of the hoisting member 3 is greater than the free fall protection member 6, since the free fall protection member 6 is connected to the car through lever 8 and catch 9, and counterweight 4 is connected to free fall protection member 6 through boom 11; and the hoisting member 3 is connected to the car and the counterweight through the traction sheave without any help for supporting the great loads of the counterweight and the car.
Wegener is silent about the specific material of the free fall protection member and the pulleys. Rasanen et al teaches an elevator system comprising hoisting members 42, a car 10, counterweight 41, free fall protection members 43 connecting car 10 and counterweight 41, at least one brake member 300, free fall protection pulleys 51/52/250, and a motor 200, wherein the free fall protection member 43 is described as a cogged belt passing over pulley 250 that comprises cogging fitting for the cogged belt (as described in paragraph 0033).
Therefore. It would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use cogged belt as the free fall protection member of Wegener, since cogged belts improve flexibility and grip compared to smooth belts. Although, Rasanen teaches the use of a motor, this motor has not been described in this rejection, since the motor is only listed in the preamble of claim 1. If the body of the claim does not use elements described in the preamble, these elements are not given any patentable weight.
Claims 2 and 13, Wegener describes, paragraph 0015, a speed sensor in connection with the free fall protection pulley 5 is used to detect the speed of car 1, wherein controller 14 activates the brake 15 when overspeed is detected (see paragraph 0010).
Claims 3 and 14, Rasanen teaches the use of a machinery brake 300, wherein the brake is used to stop rotation of a driving pulley and movement of elevator car 10, wherein machinery brake is activated during normal operation of the elevator system. As described above with respect to the brake used on the free fall protection components, this brake is only activated during an emergency situation.
Claims 4 and 15, It would be obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was file to combine the brake system of Wegener and Rasanen et al, since each of their brake system are only applied during specific operation of an elevator system.
Claims 5 and 16, the manner in which each of the brakes will be used to control deceleration of the elevator system during normal or emergency operation is considered a design choice and it will depend on the intended use of the brake system.
Claims 6-7 and 17-18, Wegener describes a mechanical lever 27 for connecting/disconnecting brake 15 is connection of pulley 17.
Claims 8 and 19, Wegener teaches clamps 8/11 connecting the free fall protection member 6 to the car and counterweight. Additionally, Rasanen et al teaches in paragraph 0036, other structures for maintaining/moving the elevator car within the elevator shaft 20. The limitation directed to a chain block is considered a preferred component for accomplishing the same function as recited by the combination of Wegener and Rasanen et al.
Claims 10 and 22, Rasanen et al describes belt 43 having grooves, these grooves can be assigned to landings of the elevator based on applicant’s design.
Claims 11 and 21, Wegener describes a speed sensor as described above in the rejection of claim 2. Additionally, Rasanen et al teaches a speed sensor 140.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegener (EP 0980842) and Rasanen et al (US Publication 2018/0327230).
as applied to claims 1-8, 10-19, and 21-22 above, and further in view of Aulanko et al (US Patent 5971109).
The difference between the teachings of Wegener and Rasanen et al and the limitations of claims 9 and 20 is the limitation directed to a maintenance access panel for opening the different brakes in case of an emergency.
Aulanko et al teaches a mechanism for releasing a brake of an elevator system comprising a maintenance panel 101 for controlling and accessing the elevator shaft for applying if need an emergency brake as described in fig. 5.
It would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a maintenance panel by a service technician to access elevator shaft in order to activate or replace a brake which is used to stop operation of elevator car, since said panel would allow an authorized personnel to access the shaft of an elevator in order to release quickly a brake in the machinery used to operate the elevator since said panel would be mounted near a door and there would be no need to enter the shaft or machine room.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents cited in the attached PTO-892, especially US Publications 20030155185 and 20070017750, describe elevator system comprising a combination of suspension cables or ropes and compensation or protection belts of ropes that use a plurality of pulleys to control operation of an elevator car.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, 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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Prosecution Insights