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 .
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.
Claims 3, 5, 10, 13-15 and 20 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.
As for claim 3, dependent upon claim 2, it is unclear how the first sensor can communicate with the logic control circuit via transmission of near field communication signal, optical signals or electromagnetic signals, in combination with Bluetooth, given the three from claim 2 and the Bluetooth of claim 3 are distinct wireless technologies.
A similar rejection is made in claim 13.
Further, claims 3 and 13 contain the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a wireless technology and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
As for claim 5, given there is no recitation of where the logic control circuit and PCB are located in the system, it is unclear how the second sensor is wired to the logic control circuit.
A similar rejection is made in claim 15.
As for claim 10, please clarify that the control circuit is the logic control circuit.
A similar clarification is requested for claim 20.
As for claim 14, it is unclear whether claim 14 should be dependent upon claim 13 as written, or claim 11, similar to how claim 4 is dependent upon claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent to Gozzo et al. (6,467,585) in view of the US patent to Tinone et al. (6,603,398).
In terms of claim 1, Gozzo et al. teaches an elevator system, comprising: a hoistway (40) having a bottom landing with landing doors; an elevator car (28) configured to move along the hoistway; a safety chain (10) operationally coupled to the elevator car, wherein the safety chain is configured for being in an open-state to stop the elevator car and otherwise being in an intact-state; a first sensor (32) mounted to the elevator car or the hoistway and configured to wirelessly (see column 2, lines 33-43) transmit a first signal when the elevator car is at the bottom landing; a second sensor (see column 2, lines 52-54, “door interlock switch 34 monitors whether a landing door 42 is open or closed.”) operationally coupled to the landing doors, the second sensor being configured to transmit a second signal when the landing doors are open; and a printed circuit board (PCB) (see column 3, lines 3-4, “wireless safety chain circuit”). (See Figures 1-3 and column 1, line 59 – column 3, line 9)
Gozzo et al. fail however to teach the use of a logic control circuit as claimed.
Tinone et al. teaches a hoistway access detection system including three safety chains. A first safety chain is formed from the door sensors from the landings of the even numbered floors. A second safety chain is formed from the door sensors from the odd numbered floors. And a third safety chain is formed from the door sensor from the pit door, which provides access to the pit at the bottom of the hoistway (see Figures 1 and 2, and column 1, line 45 – column 3, line 50). Tinone et al. further teaches the first, second and third safety chains monitored by software or logic located in the elevator controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, to employ a logic control circuit as disclosed by Tinone et al. into the similar elevator system of safety chains and sensors as disclosed by Gozzo et al., given the use of logic control circuits in elevator systems is well-known and beneficial in the art. Logic circuits in elevators are known to provide reliability and safety, improved efficiency, simplified troubleshooting and maintenance, cost effective design, and advanced functional capabilities.
As for claims 2 and 3, Gozzo et al. again teaches wireless communication between components, in particular between the controller and sensors (see column 2, lines 8-20). Therefore, the use of specific well-known wireless technologies would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
As for claim 4, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of magnetic latching relays in the elevator art is well-known and offers significant advantages such as energy efficiency, high reliability, and reduced wear and tear, making them ideal for various applications. Thus, employing a magnetic latching relay in Gozzo et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, allowing the system of Gozzo et al. to maintain its state even after power is removed, and switch states with efficient short electrical pulses.
As for claim 5, Gozzo et al. teaches the ability to hardwire components (see column 2, lines 40-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to wire specific components, dependent upon their positions in the system.
As for claims 6-8, Tinone et al. teaches the use of a reset switch (see column 2, lines 4-6 and column 3, lines 34-38). Employing such a switch into the system of Gozzo et al. would have been obvious, given Gozzo et al. clocks an error that the elevator is unsafe when a token fails to return to the base transceiver in a predetermined amount of time (see Abstract), and employing such a switch allows for easy reset after such an error.
As for claims 9 and 10, Gozzo et al. teaches the use of a power supply, such as a battery (see column 2, lines 40-43), and the ability to latch, or stop, the elevator, when conditions are deemed unsafe, for example, due to a power outage or communication means being switched off (i.e. loss of power) (see column 2, lines 14-16 and column 3, lines 20-22).
In terms of claims 11-20, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of apparatus claims 1-10, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of method claims 11-20, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the Notice of References Cited provided by the Examiner, in particular, the WIPO publication to Lindegger (WO 2018/010991 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 05/30/2026
Prosecution Insights