DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to application filed on February 5, 2024.
Claims 1-20 filed in the preliminary amendment on February 5, 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 drawing filed on February 5, 2024 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 5, 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The below claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1, the limitation of “…to a supply voltage of an elevator safety apparatus” is indefinite. Is this referring to the elevator safety apparatus previously introduced or another safety apparatus. For prior art purposes, the examiner will interpret the limitation as referring the previously introduced safety apparatus. Claim 7 also contains similar issue.
With regards to claim 8 the phrase ‘the safety actuator’ lacks antecedent basis. Applicant may wish to amend the claim to clarify whether ‘the actuator’ or ‘the elevator safety apparatus’ is intended.” For prior art purposes, the examiner will interpret the limitation to recite the elevator safety apparatus.
With regards to claim 10, “the visual indicator” “the audible indicator “Claim 10 depends only from claim 1. Claim 1 recites: “an indicator” “at least one of a sensor, an indicator, a control unit and an actuator”. Claim 1 does NOT establish antecedent basis for: “the visual indicator” or “the audible indicator.” Claim 3 introduces: “the indicator is a visual indicator, or an audible indicator” but claim 10 does not depend from claim 3. Thus claim 10 has an antecedent basis defect. A possible correction is to make claim 10 depend from claim 3, or rewrite: “wherein the indicator is a display or a buzzer.”
With regards to claim 12, the limitation “to a predetermined for which the counterweight buffer is dimensioned” is missing a noun after “predetermined. “Likely intended: “predetermined value” or “predetermined speed.”
The Examiner encourages Applicant to review the entire claim set for similar antecedent basis issues, typographical errors, and grammatical inconsistencies, and to make any appropriate corrections.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kattainen et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0134519 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kattainen) in view of Brickell U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0175743 (hereinafter referred to as Brickell) both supplied in the IDS.
With regards to claim 1, Kattainen teaches an elevator (1000), comprising:
an elevator car, adapted for transferring passengers and/or cargo between landing floors (Elevator car 130 moving to landing floors 160);
an elevator hoisting machine for operating the elevator car (Electric motor 155 moves elevator car);
a counterweight (Counterweight 135), wherein the elevator car and the counterweight are suspended on hoisting ropes running via a traction sheave of the elevator hoisting machine (Elevator car mechanically coupled by hoisting rope 140);
a drive unit for driving the hoisting machine (Electrical drive 105, frequency converter/inverter);
an elevator controller, generating control commands to move the elevator car between landing floors according to service requests from elevator passengers (Elevator control unit 1100 control unit controls operation of elevator and motor); and
an elevator safety apparatus comprising at least one of a sensor, an indicator, a control unit and an actuator for ensuring safe elevator operation (Paragraphs 0048-0049, safety-related control circuits, brake controller, auxiliary control electronics; voltage monitoring, direction sensing, operating condition detection; Brake controller and brake operation),
wherein the drive unit is configured to convert regenerative braking power of the hoisting machine to a supply voltage of an elevator safety apparatus (Motor produces regenerative electrical energy during deceleration; Electric motor 155 generates regenerative energy);
wherein the drive unit is configured to, in case of an elevator power cut, control braking of the elevator hoisting machine with a braking control mode designed for energizing the safety apparatus (Failure/loss of main electrical power supply, glide mode; Electrical drive controls motor torque to decelerate elevator and generate regenerative energy; Glide mode during power failure).
Kattainen uses stored energy and fails to teach wherein the energizing is from the regenerative braking power only, without using a secondary power source.
Brickell teaches powering safety/alarm devices directly from regenerative energy generated by elevator motion during power loss. It would have been obvious to apply this known regenerative-power approach to Kattainen’s safety-related elevator systems because both references address elevator operation during power failure and regenerative energy recovery. Brickell system also improves elevator operation reliability and reduce dependence on auxiliary backup power systems during a power failure by using regenerative braking energy itself to power elevator safety functions (refer to Brickell paragraph 0026).
With regards to claim 2, Kattainen teaches the elevator according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is a safety contact, a limit switch, a door zone sensor or a movement sensor indicating elevator car movement (Paragraph 0098, Direction/movement determination sensors disclosed).
With regards to claim 7, it is essentially the method-form counterpart of the apparatus functionality already recited in claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. With regards to the additional limitation of “regenerative braking power of an elevator hoisting machine to a DC supply voltage of an elevator safety apparatus” this is expressly taught by Kattainen (Regenerative electrical energy generated by motor during deceleration; Intermediate circuit/DC, converters, brake controller supply voltages).
With regards to claim 8, Kattainen teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising: obtaining, by an electronic safety controller, safety-relevant information from at least one sensor arranged to measure elevator safety status, and in case the information obtained indicates a safety problem of the elevator, issuing, by the electronic safety controller, a control signal to bring the elevator to a safe state, the control signal causing interrupting voltage supply from the elevator drive unit to the safety actuator (Elevator control unit monitors operating conditions and voltages; Voltage measurements, direction sensors, operating condition monitoring; Detection of predefined events/power failures; Control unit automatically controls glide mode and movement to landing).
With regards to claim 9, Kattainen teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising: controlling the braking of the hoisting machine to reduce speed of an ascending elevator car to a predetermined value (Motor torque control for deceleration; Scenarios involving upward movement disclosed; Controlled deceleration/speed regulation).
With regards to claim 11-12 and 19-20, Kattainen teaches the elevator according to claim 1. Kattainen teaches controlling braking of the hoisting machine to reduce the speed of an elevator car during emergency or regenerative operation ([0065]-[0068], [0105]). Although Kattainen does not expressly disclose that the predetermined speed is one ‘for which the counterweight buffer is dimensioned, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the predetermined reduced speed in accordance with the operational/design limits of the counterweight buffer. Doing so would represent the predictable use of known safety design considerations to ensure compatibility between elevator braking operation and the energy-absorption capability of the counterweight buffer, thereby improving safe emergency operation. It would have also been obvious to optimize the controlled braking speed to a value safely absorbable by the installed counterweight buffer because elevator buffers are conventionally dimensioned/rated for specified impact or engagement speeds, and matching operational speed limits to component safety ratings is a routine engineering consideration.
With regards to claims 3-6, 10 and 13-18, the limitations merely further define alternative/optional implementations (claimed in the alternative) of the elevator safety apparatus and, therefore, is not separately considered patentably significant.
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