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) 1-3, 5, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being taught by Osterman et al (PGPUB 2008/0185231).
With respect to claim 1, Osterman teaches a method for defining load data of an elevator car, the method comprises:
obtaining, by at least one motion sensor device (fig. 2, 109), speed data representing a speed of an asynchronous elevator hoisting motor (paragraph 0023; 5) arranged to drive the elevator car (fig. 1, 7) along an elevator shaft (paragraph 0023; 2nd sentence), and
defining the load data (paragraph 0034) of the elevator car (7) based on the obtained speed data (paragraph 0011), a direction of the elevator drive (paragraph 0011), and predefined reference data (paragraph 0011).
With respect to claim 2, Osterman teaches wherein the predefined reference data comprises a scaling factor and slip data (paragraph 0039; 102) with a known load to the direction of the elevator drive.
With respect to claim 3, Osterman teaches wherein the predefined reference data further comprises a synchronous speed data (paragraph 0011).
With respect to claim 5, Osterman teaches wherein the reference data is defined during a learning drive (paragraph 0038; 113) of the elevator car.
With respect to claim 11, Osterman teaches an elevator monitoring unit for defining load data of an elevator car, the monitoring unit comprises:
at least one motion sensor device (fig. 1, 109) configured to obtain speed data representing a speed of an asynchronous elevator hoisting motor (paragraph 0023; 5) arranged to drive the elevator car (fig. 1, 7) along an elevator shaft, and a processing unit (fig. 2, 100) configured to:
obtain the speed data from the at least one motion sensor device, and define the load data (paragraph 0034) of the elevator car based on the obtained speed data (paragraph 0011), a direction of the elevator drive (paragraph 0011), and predefined reference data (paragraph 0011).
With respect to claim 12, Osterman teaches wherein the predefined reference data comprises a scaling factor and slip data (paragraph 0039; 102) with a known load to the direction of the elevator drive.
With respect to claim 13, Osterman teaches wherein the predefined reference data further comprises a synchronous speed data (paragraph 0011).
With respect to claim 15, Osterman teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to define the reference data during a learning drive (paragraph 0038; 113) of the elevator car.
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) 9-10 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterman et al (PGPUB 2008/0185231).
With respect to claim 9, Osterman does not teach wherein the at least one motion sensor device is comprised by an elevator monitoring unit without a communicative connection to an elevator control system of an elevator system comprising the elevator car. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have for motion sensor of elevator motor to be separate from elevator system, 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
With respect to claim 10, Osterman does not teach wherein the asynchronous elevator hoisting motor is a direct-on-line induction motor or a frequency-controlled induction motor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for be DOL or frequency controlled induction motor, 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
With respect to claim 19, Osterman does not teach wherein the elevator monitoring unit is without a communicative connection to an elevator control system of an elevator system comprising the elevator car. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have for motion sensor of elevator motor to be separate from elevator system, 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
With respect to claim 20, Osterman does not teach wherein the asynchronous elevator hoisting motor is a direct-on-line (DOL) induction motor or a frequency-controlled induction motor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for be DOL or frequency controlled induction motor, 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
With respect to claim 21, Osterman does not teach computer program product for defining load data of an elevator car which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method according to any of claims 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have computer program define load data for system, 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
With respect to claim 22, Osterman does not teach an external computing unit configured to: receive the load data of the elevator car from the elevator monitoring unit, and store and analyze the received load data of the elevator car. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have external computing unit outside system, 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
Claims 4, 6-8, 14, and 16-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICK DAVID GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-8395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri_8-5pm.
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.
/ERICK D GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights