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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first vertical guide rails”, “first guide shoes”, “a car assembly” in claim 10, “a counterweight assembly”, “a counterweight frame”, “one filler element”, “a second guide assembly”, “vertical guide rails”, “a first and second guide shoes” in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “at least one control unit” in lines 5 and 6 should be re-written as “the at least one control unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7-9 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palazzola US 2021/0114842 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Polazzola discloses
A load-bearing component (fig. 1, item 10) of an elevator, comprising: at least one strain gauge (fig. 1, item 13) for sensing strain on the component, wherein the at least one strain gauge is a printed strain gauge [0040-0043].
Regarding claim 2, Polazzola discloses wherein the at least one strain gauge is printed on at least one substrate and the at least one substrate is attached on an outer surface of the component by a gluing agent (ink) [0004, 0010, 0040-0043].
Regarding claim 3, Polazzola discloses wherein the at least one strain gauge is formed directly on an outer surface of the component being monitored by means of additive manufacturing technology (a monitoring device) [0004, 0010, 0040-0043].
Regarding claim 7, Polazzola discloses wherein the load-bearing component is a rope fixing assembly for fixing at least one suspension rope (belt) of the elevator [0043].
Regarding claim 8, Polazzola discloses wherein the load-bearing component is a topmost suspension beam of an elevator car [0005].
Regarding claim 9, Polazzola discloses wherein the at least one strain gauge is manufactured by ink-jet printing technology [0042].
Regarding claim 14, Palazzola discloses
A method of monitoring operation of an elevator [0011], the method comprising the steps of: providing at least one load-bearing component (fig. 1, item 10) of the elevator with at least one strain gauge (item 13); and producing sensing data by the at least one strain gauge and transmitting the sensing data to at least one control unit (a monitoring device) for further processing, by the step of providing the at least one load-bearing component with at least one printed strain gauge further comprises the step of providing the at least one load-bearing component with at least one printed strain gauge [0011, 0013, 0040-0043].
Regarding claim 15, Palazzola discloses the steps of: implementing the at least one printed strain gauge as a load weighting device of the elevator; and examining a weight of cargo inside an elevator car in at least one control unit in response to sensing data gathered from the at least one printed strain gauge [0048].
Regarding claims 4, 16 and 17, Palazzola discloses, wherein the at least one strain gauge is provided with a connecting wiring for communicating with at least one control unit (a monitoring device) [0011, 0013, 0024, 0046, 0047].
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikkonen et al. US 9,546,076 B2 in a view of Palazzola US 2021/0114842 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Mikkonen et al. disclose
An elevator (fig. 1) comprising: an elevator car (item 1) (column 3, lines 32-40); at least one first guide assembly provided with first vertical guide rails (fig. 2, item 17) mountable to an elevator shaft (item 15) (column 4, lines 57-67) and first guide shoes (item 18) mountable to a car assembly (column 5, lines 14-17), and wherein the guide shoes are supportable against the first guide rails (column 5, lines 14-17); hoisting machinery for moving the elevator car vertically inside the elevator shaft. (column 2, lines 23-28, column 3, lines 35-58, column 4, lines 57-67)
Mikkonen does not disclose but Palazzola discloses and at least one strain gauge (fig. 1, item 13) configured to monitor at least one load-bearing component (item 10) of the elevator wherein the at least one strain gauge is configured to sense strain on the component, and wherein the at least one strain gauge is a printed strain gauge (via a connector 130C). [0040-0043]
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 a strain gauge to monitor load-bearing component as disclosed by Palazzola in Mikkonen’s teachings to monitoring
intrinsic properties of components of elevator systems [Palazzola’s 0001].
Regarding claim 11, Mikkonen et al. disclose wherein the elevator is a traction elevator (column 3, lines 10-15) and further comprises: a counterweight assembly (fig. 1, item 3a or 3b) provided with a counterweight frame (fig. 1 shows two frames) and at least one filler element (see annotated fig. below); a second guide assembly provided with second vertical guide rails (figs. 1 and 6, item 17) (column 4, lines 57-67) and second guide shoes (item 18) for the counterweight frame and wherein the first and second guide shoes are supportable against the first and second vertical guide rails, respectively (column 5, lines 5-17, column 6, lines 20-45); the hoisting machinery comprising an electric motor (item 9) and a traction sheave (item 8) driven by means of the electric motor (column 4, lines 11-20); and at least one suspension rope connecting the elevator car and the counterweight assembly and arranged to pass over the traction sheave (column 3, lines 58) and
PNG
media_image1.png
552
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Palazzola discloses wherein the at least one printed strain gauge is mounted to the at least one load-bearing component being subjected to stresses caused by cargo inside the elevator car [0048].
Regarding claim 12, Palazzola discloses wherein the load bearing element the at least one load-bearing component is a rope fixing assembly for fixing the at least one suspension rope [0043].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikkonen in a view of Palazzola and further in a view of Robinette et al. US 9,311,586 B2.
Regarding claim 13, Palazzola discloses wherein the at least one printed strain gauge is mounted to a load bearing (item 10) the at least one load-bearing component being part of a movable structure of the elevator [0040-0043],
A combination of Mikkonen and Palazzola does not disclose but Robinette et al. disclose wherein, in connection with the at least one printed strain gauge, is a remote readable tag (fig. 2, item 129) and wherein a fixed structural part (column 9, lines 15-21) of the elevator is provided with at least one antenna (item 111) for remotely activating the at least one printed strain gauge and the remote readable tag for providing and transmitting sensing data in response to a situation when the remote readable tag is inside a range of the at least one antenna (column 19, lines 40-67, column 20, lines 1-23).
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 a remote readable tag along with antenna as disclosed by Robinette in Mikkonen’s and Palazzola’s teachings to monitor the sensor remotely.
Claims 5, 6, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palazzola US 2021/0114842 A1 in a view of Robinette et al. US 9,311,586 B2.
Regarding claims 5, 18 and 19, Palazzola does not disclose but Robinette et al disclose, wherein the at least one strain gauge is connected to at least one wireless data communication device (tag) for communicating with at least one control unit (column 18, lines 65-67, column 19, lines 1-12, 54-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the strain gauge wirelessly as disclosed by Robinette in Palazzola’s teachings to monitor the sensor remotely.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Palazzola does not disclose but Robinette et al disclose, the at least one strain gauge is provided with a RFID tag for providing the at least one strain gauge with a passive radio frequency identification (RFID), whereby the at least one strain gauge attached on the surface of the component is remotely communicated and powered by an external transmitter (column 12, lines 39-56, column 15, lines 37-67 column 19, lines 55-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide RFID tag to strain gauge as along with an external transmitter disclosed by Robinette in Palazzola’s teachings to monitor the sensor remotely.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schlegel et al. (US 4,573,542) disclose load-weighing apparatus for an elevator car.
O’Donnell et al. (US 6,123,176) disclose rope tension monitoring assembly.
Martin (US 2018/0362294 A1) discloses elevator termination assembly.
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, 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 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 2837
Prosecution Insights