DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is a response to communication submitted on 07/27/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
3. Claims 12-30 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 12, 17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAO et al. (CN 208308193 U).
In regards to claims 12, 17, 24 and 26, CAO shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses an elevator system including an elevator car (2) configured to move between levels of a building along a pathway (see Figs. 1-2) and including an elevator plate assembly (as shown in Figs. 1-5) for use with an elevator system including an elevator car (2) configured to move between levels (i.e. floors) of a building along a pathway, the elevator plate assembly including:
a plate (i.e. 4) configured to be positioned to cover an aperture defined by a floor (i.e. 5) of the building and to be carried by the elevator car (2) as the elevator car travels along the pathway (i.e. implicit as elevator shaft/hoist, or car running track 7) through the aperture (i.e. 6) defined by the floor of the building; and
a sensor system (i.e. 12/13) configured to be communicatively coupled to a control system (i.e. elevator control box 27; MCU) of the elevator system, the sensor system including a sensor (12/13) positionable relative to the plate such that the plate is within an active zone of the sensor (implicitly in the zone of plate 4), the sensor being configured to detect the presence of an obstruction on the plate by analysing data captured by the sensor (i.e. infrared sensor and a two-layer upper part layer the infrared sensor, an infrared sensor and second infrared sensor are connected with the MCU controller, see Description), such that, on detection of the presence of an obstruction by the sensor, the sensor system is configured to send an alert to the elevator control system (i.e. the MCU is further connected to alarm, such as a buzzer or a voice alarm, after receiving the elevator calling or selected layers of the signal, but the car door opening/closing detection switch is in the open state, or an infrared sensor, a pressure sensor detects the abnormal circumstance, it can give an alarm, see Description).
Note- dependent claim 24 is considered ambiguous and repetitive and does not set further limitations other than claims 12 and 17.
In regards to claims 21-22 and 26 CAO shows (Figs. 1-5) wherein the pathway comprises one or more elongate channel members (i.e. 6) extending along the length of travel of the elevator car and wherein the active sensor is mounted in a channel member and further including an elevator drive (i.e. 3) mechanism which is a rail drive system (i.e. 7) and the rail is mounted in a channel member and wherein the active sensor (12/13) is mounted to the rail.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 13-15, 20, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO et al. (CN 208308193 U) in view of GE (CN 106276519 A).
In regards to claims 13-15, 20, 25 and 27, although CAO shows a sensor that is positioned above the plate (i.e. 13 is above plate 4); wherein the sensor is mounted to a channel member of the elevator system (see Figs. 1-2, i.e. channel 6); wherein the sensor is mounted on the plate (4).
CAO does not explicitly disclose that the sensor is a camera.
However, GE further discloses and shows (Figs. 1-6) the top part of the elevator is provided with a (sensitive plate/ safety plate 6 /5), said sensing plate stay at the top of the elevator floor is used for shielding an elevator hoistway … the sensitive sensor or a camera is set on the safety guard plate of elevator 6 to judge whether elevator car 3 is whether there is a person or object, see Description).
Hence, given the teaching of GE it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit/system of CAO in order to employ a camara as one of multiple sensor choice to judge whether the sensitive plate 5 there is a person or object, consequently improving the system security accuracy and reliability.
8. Claims 16 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO et al. (CN 208308193 U) in view of NAKANISHI (CN 206580424 U).
In regards to claims 16 and 28, CAO does not explicitly disclose the sensor a 3D camera.
However, this is well-known and an obvious modification to an elevator sensor system.
NAKANISHI further shows (Figs. 1-11) utility model of elevator (1) comprises a door head plate (22), a camera (4) and bracket (61), wherein the camera is a 3D camera (i.e. implicitly as the shooting range of the camera 4 hall 3 side can span and specific elevator 3 side of the door device 31 of the total width of the range. As one example of the mounting angle, the camera 4 installed into the following state: the central line A of the view V relative to elevator 3 side upright 60 to right below, see Description).
Hence, given the teaching of NAKANISHI it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit/system of CAO in order to employ a 3D camara as one of multiple sensor choice to capture three-dimensional depth information or creates stereoscopic images that mimic human binocular vision specially within the elevator plate if there is a person or object, consequently improving the system security accuracy and reliability.
9. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO et al. (CN 208308193 U) in view of SEOUL (KR 101619275 B1).
In regards to claim 18, CAO does not explicitly disclose wherein the active sensor is a LiDAR sensor.
However, SEOUL discloses wherein the active sensor is a LiDAR sensor (see Description, i.e. a laser sensor 20 for emitting a direct-acting laser as a clearance between a door and a door frame, a camera 16 provided on an upper ceiling of the elevator, And a control means for stopping the door or outputting a warning message by analyzing a sensing signal of the laser sensor 20 and an image of the camera 16 projected by the reflecting mirror 21, (100)….the laser sensor 20 and the reflector 21 are provided on one bracket 22, and the bracket 22 is formed in a plate-like shape and fixed to the upper end of the door of the door of the elevator by screws or an adhesive And the signal line connected to the laser sensor 20 is connected to the control means 100 inside the elevator using holes drilled at the top of the door frame.
Hence, given the teaching of SEOUL it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit/system of CAO in order to employ LIDAR such a laser as one of multiple sensor choice as a remote sensing method that uses laser light to measure distances and create precise, three-dimensional maps of objects and surface, specially within the elevator plate if there is a person or object, consequently improving the system security accuracy and reliability.
10. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO et al. (CN 208308193 U) in view of PAYNE (FR 2765345 A1).
In regards to claim 19, CAO does not explicitly disclose wherein the active sensor is an ultrasonic sensor.
However, this is well-known and an obvious modification to an elevator sensor system.
PAYNE discloses the active sensor is an ultrasonic sensor (i.e. proximity sensor); (see Description, i.e. two PIR sensors can be used to observe the region in front of the elevator doors and obtain both "curtain" and "proximity" actions. A wide field of vision in the vertical plane is assigned to one of the sensors while a narrow field of vision, close to the plane of the edge of the door, is assigned to the other sensor. The wide field of view sensor then produces a "curtain" detection voltage, which covers the entire door opening, while the narrow field of view sensor provides a "proximity" detection function. In this embodiment, the two modes are adjustable independently and one or the other can be completely eliminated if only a particular mode is desired. The field of vision of the proximity sensor must be able to be adjusted for the adjustment of the proximity range which is required and thus the use of a pivoting mirror situated directly in front of the sensor is advantageous. This mirror can be adjusted and then locked in position, so that the detection range in front of the door edge is preset to a satisfactory value).
Hence, given the teaching of PAYNE it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit/system of CAO in order to employ an electronic device that measures distance or detects objects by emitting high-frequency sound waves and calculating the time it takes for the echo to return specially within the elevator plate if there is a person or object, consequently improving the system security accuracy and reliability.
11. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO et al. (CN 208308193 U) in view of GE (CN 106276519 A) and further in view of SEOUL (KR 101619275 B1).
In regards to claim 23, CAO as modified by GE does not explicitly disclose wherein the rail drive mechanism is a rack-and- pinion drive system.
However, a rack-and- pinion drive system are commonly used on the elevator systems that do not use hoist ropes, counterweights
MATSUI shows (Figs. 1-3) and discloses wherein the rail drive mechanism is a rack-and- pinion drive system (see Abstract , i.e. a motor M is driven, an elevator cage 4 is supported and guided by a guide roller 6, and elevates and sinks on a rack 3 with rotation of a pinion 5 while being supported and guided by a support/guide rail 1. When the motor M is stopped, the cage 4 is stopped by mechanical brakes. Because the cage 4 rises and sinks with meshing of the rack 3 with pinion 5, the cage 4 does not fall in the event of severance of a rope 8 tying the cage 4 with a balance weight 7, to ensure safety. This gives favorable economy in a place with a less number of passengers and with a small number of storeys for rising and sinking).
Hence, given the teaching of MATSUI it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit/system of CAO as modified by GE in order to employ rack and pinion elevator system as rail as to making them self-contained, highly stable, and easy to install on the outside of structures, consequently improving the system durability reliability in special for permanently in harsh or demanding outdoor environments.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 29-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Related Prior Arts
13. The following related prior arts made of record are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure to further show the general state of the art and may be applied alone or in combination for rejection of the claims.
LI et al. (CN 112830367 B) discloses the control method of the low noise elevator of the present invention, the elevator car further comprises: and a door-side photosensitive sensor. the door side photosensitive sensor is arranged on the plate surface of the back plate towards the elevator hoistway; The door side photosensitive sensor can obtain the door side position sensing information. the sensing output end of the door side photosensitive sensor is connected with the input end of the controller and can output the sensing information of the door side position.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L CARRASQUILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7879. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday (9am to 5pm).
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE L CARRASQUILLO/Primary Examiner Engineer, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights