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 § 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 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mangini et al. US 2012/0018256 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Mangini et al. disclose
A safety net system (fig. 1) for an elevator system comprising an elevator pit and multiple points of ingress (doors) to the elevator pit [0019], the safety net system comprising: multiple sensors (items 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28) arranged in multiple planes encompassing the multiple points of ingress to perform sensing and to generate data corresponding to sensing results (fig. 1 shows sensors in different direction); and a processor (microprocessor) coupled to the multiple sensors to analyze whether the data indicates a person entering the elevator pit and to take an action based on results of the analysis [0022].
Regarding claim 4, Mangini discloses, wherein each of the multiple sensors is an RGBD camera (image analyzer) [0011].
Regarding claim 18, Mangini et al. disclose
A method of operating a safety net system of an elevator system, the method comprising: sensing for an object either disposed along a ladder leading to an elevator pit or in an area spanning a door leading to the elevator pit; generating data corresponding to results of the sensing; analyzing whether the data is indicative of a person standing on the ladder or entering the elevator pit through the door; and taking an action relating to elevator system operations based on results of the analyzing (see claim 1 rejection for detail).
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 2, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangini et al. in a view of Schmidt et al. US 2020/0048048 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Mangini does not disclose but Schmidt et al. disclose wherein each of the multiple sensors is a LiDAR sensor [0032, 0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Mangini sensors with LiDAR sensors as taught by Schmidt to avoid additional wiring [0033]
Regarding claim 3, Mangini does not disclose but Schmidt et al. disclose, wherein each of the multiple sensors is a millimeter wave RADAR sensor [0032, 0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Mangini sensors with RADAR sensors as taught by Schmidt to avoid additional wiring [0033]
Regarding claim 5, Mangini does not disclose but Schmidt et al. disclose, wherein each of the multiple sensors is one of a LiDAR sensor, a RADAR sensor or a camera [0032, 0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Mangini sensors with LiDAR or RADAR sensors as taught by Schmidt to avoid additional wiring [0033]
Claims 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangini et al. in a view of Tinone et al. US 6,603,398 B2.
Regarding claim 8, Mangini fails to disclose but Tinone et al. disclose, wherein: the processor is configured to shut down elevator system operations following a delay (steps 102-108 initiate delay to perform the steps) in an event the data indicates the person entering the elevator pit (via a pit door) (column 2, lines 20-25), the processor is configured to shut down elevator system operations immediately in an event the data indicates the person entering the elevator pit and an emergency switch (pit sensor) is pressed, and the processor is further configured to execute at least a motion control response of the elevator system based on results of the analysis (column 2, lines 60-67, column 3, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shut down the elevator system using the switch as taught by Tinone in Mangini’s teachings to improve elevator safety (see Tinone’s column 1, lines 5-7)
.
Regarding claim 9, Mangini et al. disclose
An elevator system (fig. 1), comprising: an elevator pit [0019]; and a door [0019] for ingress to the elevator pit; buttons for operating the elevator system [0020]; and a safety net system comprising: multiple sensors (items 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28) arranged in multiple planes encompassing the multiple points of ingress to perform sensing and to generate data corresponding to sensing results (fig. 1 shows sensors in different direction); and a processor (microprocessor) coupled to the multiple sensors to analyze whether the data indicates a person entering the elevator pit and to take an action based on results of the analysis and respective states of the buttons [0020, 0022].
Mangini does not disclose but Tinone et al. disclose a ladder (column 2, lines 36-52).
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 ladder a disclosed by Tinone in Mangini’s teachings to access to the bottom of the hoistway.
Regarding claim 12, Mangini discloses, wherein each of the multiple sensors is an RGBD camera (image analyzer) [0011].
Regarding claim 16, Mangini fails to disclose but Tinone et al. disclose, wherein: a first one of the buttons (pit sensor) is an emergency switch within the elevator pit in close proximity to the door (column 2, lines 20-25), the processor is configured to shut down elevator system operations following a delay (steps 102-108 initiate delay to perform the steps) in an event the data indicates the person entering the elevator pit (via a pit door), the processor is configured to shut down elevator system operations immediately in an event the data indicates the person entering the elevator pit and the emergency switch is pressed, and the processor is further configured to execute at least a motion control response of the elevator system based on results of the analysis (column 2, lines 60-67, column 3, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shut down the elevator system using the button as taught by Tinone in Mangini’s teachings to improve elevator safety (see Tinone’s column 1, lines 5-7)
.
Regarding claim 17, a combination of Mangini and Tinone discloses, wherein: a second one of the buttons is a reset button (item 26) at an exterior of the elevator pit, and the processor is further configured to cease operations of the multiple sensors and analysis by the processor following shut down until the reset switch is pressed (see Tinone’s column 3, lines 7-14).
Regarding claim 19, Mangini fails to disclose but Tinone et al. disclose, wherein the taking of the action comprises: shutting down elevator system operations following a delay (steps 102-108 initiate delay to perform the steps) in an event the data is indicative of the person standing on the ladder or entering the elevator pit through the door (via opening any door), and shutting down elevator system operations immediately in an event the data is indicative of the person standing on the ladder or entering the elevator pit through the door and an emergency switch (pit sensor) is pressed (column 2, lines 60-67, column 3, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shut down the elevator system when the switch is pressed as taught by Tinone in Mangini’s teachings to improve elevator safety (see Tinone’s column 1, lines 5-7)
Regarding claim 20, a combination of Mangini and Tinone discloses, wherein the taking of the action further comprises ceasing the sensing, the generating and the analyzing following shut down until a reset switch is pressed (see Tinone’s column 3, lines 7-14).
Claims 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangini et al. in a view of Tinone et al. US 6,603,398 B2 and further in a view of Schmidt et al. US 2020/0048048 A1.
Regarding claim 10, a combination of Mangini and Tinone does not disclose but Schmidt et al. disclose wherein each of the multiple sensors is a LiDAR sensor [0032, 0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Mangini sensors with LiDAR sensors as taught by Schmidt to avoid additional wiring [0033]
Regarding claim 11, a combination of Mangini and Tinone does not disclose but Schmidt et al. disclose, wherein each of the multiple sensors is a millimeter wave RADAR sensor [0032, 0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Mangini sensors with RADAR sensors as taught by Schmidt to avoid additional wiring [0033]
Regarding claim 13, a combination of Mangini and Tinone does not disclose but Schmidt et al. disclose, wherein each of the multiple sensors is one of a LiDAR sensor, a RADAR sensor or a camera [0032, 0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Mangini sensors with LiDAR or RADAR sensors as taught by Schmidt to avoid additional wiring [0033]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 14 and 15 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. Claims 6 and 15 mention details about point of ingress and claims 7 and 15 mention about forming cloud data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roberts et al. (US 11,912,534 B1) disclose elevator pit safety net system.
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