DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to application filed on January 2, 2024.
Claims 1-24 filed in the preliminary amendment on January 2, 2024 are being considered on the merits.
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 filed on November 24, 2021 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 2, 2024 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, an initialed and dated copy of Applicant's IDS form 1449 filed are attached to the instant Office action.
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 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. (FP 7.08.aia)
Claims 1-4, 9-15 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saarikoski et al. (hereinafter referred to as Saarikoski) U.S Patent Publication No. 2010/0253883.
As to claim 1, Saarikoski teaches a method comprising:
monitoring position and/or movement of an elevator car in a standby mode of a braking arrangement (“the movement status of the elevator car is periodically measured during the standby mode with the encoder connected to the traction sheave 25 of the elevator motor” ([0045]); “movement information can be read e.g. from a movement signal of the elevator car, such as a signal of the elevator motor or of the encoder of the car roof or of the acceleration sensor” ([0032]);“the control arrangement 11 reads the speed signal v of the elevator car” ([0049]); and
activating the braking arrangement from the standby mode in response to a detection of a change in the position and/or of the movement (“If it is detected in the measurements made during the standby mode that the safety of the elevator car has been endangered, the elevator system is switched to a mode in which drive with the elevator is prevented” ([0047]); “the control appliance 10 controls the machinery brake 13 of the elevator” when unsafe conditions are detected ([0043]); “the standby mode can be terminated e.g. if moving of the elevator car is detected” ([0032]).
As to claim 2, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, in the standby mode, at least an electrical power supply of the braking arrangement is inactivated, the electrical power supply being configured to supply power for providing braking with respect to movement of the elevator car (refer to at least paragraphs [0008, 0017 and 0035]).
As to claim 3, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the braking arrangement is in connection with an elevator motor which is arranged to cause moving of the elevator car (refer to at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0043].
As to claim 4, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the activating comprises at least an activation of the electrical power supply of the braking arrangement, the electrical power supply configured to supply power for providing braking with respect to movement of the elevator car (refer to at least paragraphs [0032, 0044 and 0048]).
As to claim 9, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 1, comprising initiating the standby mode prior to the activating (refer to at least paragraphs [0021 and 0044]).
As to claim 10, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the initiating includes a detection of an idle period related to operation of the elevator car (refer to at least paragraphs [0030 and 0044]).
As to claim 11, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the initiating includes a detection of standstill of the elevator car, such as in a landing floor zone (refer to at least paragraphs [0013 and 0044]).
As to claim 12, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the monitoring is provided by a processing unit arranged to be active in the standby mode (refer to at least paragraphs [0009, 0035 and 0048]).
As to claim 13, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the activating comprises the processing unit providing an activation signal to or of the braking arrangement, such as to turn on the electrical power supply (refer to at least paragraphs [0014 and 0048]).
As to claim 14, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the monitoring comprises utilizing position, speed, and/or acceleration/deceleration measurement data from a sensor in connection with one of the following: the elevator motor, the elevator car, an elevator shaft (refer to at least paragraphs [0032, 0043, 0045 and 0049]).
As to claim 15, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the sensor in connection with the elevator motor is a motor encoder (refer to at least paragraph [0045]).
As to claim 22, Saarikoski teaches an elevator comprising: an elevator car;
an elevator motor arranged to cause moving of the elevator car (refer to at least paragraphs [0043 and 0045]).; a braking arrangement arranged to provide braking with respect to movement of the elevator car (refer to at least paragraphs [0043 and 0045]).; wherein the elevator is configured to: monitor position and/or movement of the elevator car in a standby mode of the braking arrangement (refer to at least paragraphs [0045 and 0049]).; and activate the braking arrangement from the standby mode in response to a detection of a change in the position and/or of the movement of the elevator car (refer to at least paragraphs [0032, 0043 and 0047])
As to claim 23-24, they do not define anything beyond the claims rejected above; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarikoski et al. (hereinafter referred to as Saarikoski) U.S Patent Publication No. 2010/0253883.
Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Saarikoski teaches monitoring movement of the elevator car during standby mode and responding to detected movement or unsafe conditions. Specifically, Saarikoski teaches:
“the movement status of the elevator car is periodically measured during the standby mode” ([0045]); “If it is detected in the measurements made during the standby mode that the safety of the elevator car has been endangered, the elevator system is switched to a mode in which drive with the elevator is prevented” ([0047]); determining stopping of the elevator car in a floor zone based on the signal of the sensor of the stopping floor of the elevator ([0034]); “the control arrangement deduces that the elevator car has stopped at the floor” ([0044]).
Although Saarikoski does not expressly disclose moving the elevator car to a landing floor zone after stopping following detection of movement, It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to move or reposition the elevator car to a landing floor zone after detection of unintended movement and stopping of the elevator car in order to place the elevator car in a safe and accessible position for passengers and/or maintenance personnel. Such repositioning to a landing zone represents a predictable use of known elevator control techniques and safety procedures consistent with Saarikoski’s teachings regarding monitoring elevator position, determining floor zones, and responding to unsafe movement conditions.
Claims 5-8, 16-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saarikoski et al. (hereinafter referred to as Saarikoski) U.S Patent Publication No. 2010/0253883 in view of Rogers et al. (hereinafter referred to as Rogers) U.S Patent Publication No. 2015/0191327.
Saarikoski teaches an elevator system operated in a standby mode in which movement of the elevator car is monitored and braking-related functionality is activated in response to detected movement. However, Saarikoski does not expressly teach dynamic braking implemented by selectively shorting motor phases using semiconductor switching devices within an electric power converter as recited in claims 5–8, 16–21, and 23–24.
Rogers expressly teaches that dynamic braking through controlled shorting of motor windings provides braking force through back electromotive force and allows efficient braking control using semiconductor switches ([0002], [0028], [0029]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the standby-mode elevator monitoring and brake activation system of Saarikoski with the dynamic braking techniques of Rogers in order to improve braking response, reduce reliance on purely mechanical braking, and provide controlled electrical braking during unintended elevator movement.
As to claim 5, wherein the braking arrangement is arranged to provide dynamic braking of the elevator motor (refer to Rogers at least at paragraphs [0002 and 0028]).
As to claim 6, wherein the dynamic braking is provided by short-circuiting at least two motor phases relative to each other (refer to Rogers at least at paragraphs [0002 and 0028]).
As to claim 7, wherein the dynamic braking is provided by controllable power semiconductor devices (refer to Rogers at least at paragraphs [0002 and 0028]).
As to claim 8, wherein the controllable power semiconductor devices are comprised in an electric power converter, such as a frequency converter (refer to Rogers at least at paragraphs [0026-0029]).
As to claim 16, wherein the monitoring includes determining a voltage of an intermediate circuit of an electric power converter, or a phase-to-phase motor voltage, a phase-to-ground motor voltage, a motor phase-to-negative DC bus voltage, or a motor current (refer to Rogers at least at paragraphs [0030-0032]).
As to claim 17, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the elevator motor is a permanent magnet motor (refer to Rogers at least at paragraphs [0002 and 0028]).
As to claim 18, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 1, comprising, after and/or in response to the activating, providing dynamic braking of an elevator motor (refer to Rogers at least at paragraphs [0032, 0034 and 0047]).
As to claim 20, wherein the braking arrangement is comprised in an electric power converter, such as in a frequency converter, arranged to operate the elevator motor (refer to Rogers at least at paragraphs [0026-0029]).
As to claim 21, Saarikoski teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the processing unit is comprised in the electric power converter (refer to Rogers at least at paragraphs [0027-0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (refer to the attached 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWKI SAIF ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-3985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571-272-4483. 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.
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights