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
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kattainen et al (US Publication 20200223667).
Claims 1 and 10, Kattainen et al teaches an elevator monitor system/method of operation comprising: a controller 214 configured to control movement of an elevator system that comprises an elevator car 202, a counterweight 212, and a suspension member (tension member) 210 in a shaft 206; a sensor to sense the position of counterweight 212 with the elevator car 202 stopped at a predefined position (as described in paragraph 0058); and a processor 218 for receiving the output from the position sensor and configured to analyze the data and calculates based on said data, an elongation of the tension member 210 (as described for example in paragraph 0041).
Claims 2 and 11, Kattainen et al describes for example in paragraph 0058 that the elevator car 202 travels to a predefined position so that the position of the counterweight can be detected.
Claims 3 and 12, Kattainen et al describes safety control processor 218 estimates tension member 210 life based on the determined elongation (as described for example 0059).
Claims 4 and 13, Kattainen et al describes safety control processor 218 following a sequence of steps, described in paragraphs 0061-0063, for either sending a message or alarm to maintenance personnel to inspect the elevator system due to the tension member life approaching its lifetime or replace the elevator suspension member once the determined elongation has surpassed a predetermined shutdown value.
Claim 15, Kattainen et al teaches a monitoring method for an elevator system comprising a car 202 and a counterweight 212 attached to a tension belt 210 around a sheave or pulley of a hoisting machine 204 (as described in paragraph 0037, the method comprises using a processor 218 to record different positions of the hoisting machine (and pulley) with the elevator car 202 at different positions in shaft 206 and different loads (empty car or at regular operation during the day or night, see for example the description given in paragraphs 0046-0048); storing initial elasticity values (elongation) when a tension member is replaced (paragraph 0046): storing updated elasticity values during operation of the elevator system (see paragraph 0051); using feedback from a position sensor to calculate a current tension belt elasticity (elongation); and determining tension belt life from a comparison between the initial tension values (elongation) and current calculated values as processed by processor 218 (see for example paragraph 0041).
Claim 16, Kattainen et al describes safety processor 218 calculating initial elasticity values (elongation) after a suspension belt 210 has been replaced and the elevator car has been operated at different times (see the sequence described in paragraphs 0046-0048) and calculating updated elongation values based on the feedback from the position sensor while operating the elevator car.
Claim 17, Kattainen et al teaches safety control processor 218 using feedback from position sensors to determine the elongation of suspension belt 210 as described above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 18-20, Kattainen et al, it is inherent that a total weight would include the weight of the actual elevator car and any people using the elevator. The torque required to move the elevator car changes as the total mass of the elevator changes.
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(s) 5-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kattainen et al (US Publication 20200223667).
Claims 5 and 14, Kattainen et al teaches positioning the position sensor in several areas of the elevator system, to include the elevator shaft 206, to determine an elongation of suspension member 210. It would have been 0bvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to mount the position sensor as recited in the claims, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 6-9, Kattainen et al discloses the claimed invention except for the preferred type of position sensor. It would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use LiDAR, Radar, or RGBD cameras as the position sensor, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed in the attached PTO-892 describe different elevator systems that describe ways to estimate or calculate the elongation of a suspension member such as ropes and belts based on a position of a counterweight and/or elevator car.
Although, only a few sections of the applied prior art (kattainen et al) have been described, the entire documents must be reviewed before responding to this Office Action. Other parts of the applied prior art could also be used in rejecting the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Eduardo Colon Santana can be reached at (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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights