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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 27 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because the rationale was that there may be a search and examination burden. In this case, there would be additional searching needed and the method claims add examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mentioned" on Line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
On Line 17 of claim 1, it recites “configured to support several guide rail elements” but Lines 6-7 recite “at least one guide rail element”. It is unclear if these are the same or different.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the mentioned" on Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 9,592,997 to Mertala.
Regarding claim 1, Mertala teaches in Figures 1, 3a and 3b, an arrangement (6) [transport frame (Column 11, Line 53)] for assisting installation (Column 1, Lines 7-8) of guide rails (1 and 2) (Column 11, Line 46) of an elevator (Column 1, Line 8) to an elevator shaft (3) (Column 11, Line 18); wherein the arrangement (6) comprises an installation platform (6c top) [horizontal support portion (Column 14, Line 48)] suspended [by hoist 7] movably [hoist (Column 12, Line 4)] to the elevator shaft (3); and wherein the installation platform (6c top) is provided with at least one support element (6a) [bottom portion (Column 11, Lines 60-61)] for supporting at least one guide rail element (1a/2a) (Column 11, Line 41); wherein the mentioned support element (6a) is a guide rail basket (Column 11, Lines 58-59) supported to the installation platform (6c top) and being vertically movable [hoist (Column 12, Line 4)] inside the elevator shaft (3) together with the installation platform (6c top); the guide rail basket (6a) is located below the installation platform (6c top) at a vertical distance from the installation platform (6c top); and the guide rail basket (6a) comprises at least a bottom surface (Column 14, Lines 57-58) configured to support several guide rail elements (1a/2a) vertically between the guide rail basket (6a) and the installation platform (6c top).
Regarding claim 2, Mertala teaches in Figure 3b, the installation platform (6c top) comprises at least one support opening [between the two top members] through which upper parts of the vertical guide rail elements (1a/2a) are configured to pass and extend above a floor surface [the upper surface] of the installation platform (6c top).
Regarding claim 4, Mertala teaches in Figure 3a, the guide rail basket (6a) is supported below the installation platform (6c top) by means of several bendable [made of steel (Column 14, Lines 40-42) capable of being bent] supports (6b) [side portions (Column 14, Lines 47-48)]; and lengths of the mentioned supports (6b) are dimensioned so that the vertical distance between the bottom surface of the guide rail basket (6a) and a floor of the installation platform (6c top) is shorter than lengths of the guide rail elements (1a/2a).
Regarding claim 5, Mertala teaches in Figure 3a, the guide rail basket (6a) is dimensioned to carry weight of 2-6 guide rail elements (1a/2a).
Regarding claim 6, Mertala teaches in Figure 3a, the guide rail basket (6a) comprises side supports (6b) [side portions (Column 14, Lines 47-48)] extending above the bottom surface of the guide rail basket (6a).
Regarding claim 8, Mertala teaches the installation platform is a temporary installation structure [removable (Column 13, Line 66)] which is configured to be removed (Column 12, Lines 1-4) from the elevator shaft after the installation work is completed (Colum 7, Lines 25-26).
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent # 11,851,304 to Kinjarapu et al [with an effective filing date of 15 October 2018].
Regarding claim 1, Kinjarapu teaches in Figures 2, 6 and 12, an arrangement (Column 1, Line 15) for assisting installation of guide rails (Column 1, Line 13) of an elevator (Column 1, Line 14) to an elevator shaft (2) [hoistway (Column 6, Line 22)]; wherein the arrangement comprises an installation platform (6) [ceiling (Column 7, Line 42)] suspended movably [via hoisting arrangement 11 (Column 10, Line 5)] to the elevator shaft (2); and wherein the installation platform (6) is provided with at least one support element (4a) [floor structure (Column 10, Line 1)] for supporting at least one guide rail element (1a) (Column 7, Lines 34-35); wherein the mentioned support element (4a) is a guide rail basket [the guide rails rest on the floor structure (Column 6, Line 32)] supported to the installation platform (6) and being vertically movable [via hoisting arrangement 11 (Column 10, Line 5)] inside the elevator shaft (2) together with the installation platform (6); the guide rail basket (4a) is located below the installation platform (6) at a vertical distance from the installation platform (6); and the guide rail basket (4a) comprises at least a bottom surface configured to support several guide rail elements (1a) (Column 6, Line 32) vertically between the guide rail basket (4a) and the installation platform (6).
Regarding claim 2, Kinjarapu teaches in Figure 6, the installation platform (6) comprises at least one support opening (8) [support equipment (Column 7, Line 52)] through which upper parts of the vertical guide rails (1a) are configured to pass and extend above a floor surface of the installation platform (6).
Regarding claim 3, Kinjarapu teaches in Figures 5 and 6, the installation platform (6) comprises several dedicated support openings (8a) [seats (Column 7, Line 55)] whereby upper parts of each guide rail element (1a) is supported separately to the installation platform (6); and shapes of the support openings (8a) correspond to cross-sectional shapes of the guide rail elements (1a).
Regarding claim 5, Kinjarapu teaches in Figure 6, the guide rail basket (4a) is dimensioned to carry weight of 2-6 guide rail elements (1a).
Regarding claim 6, Kinjarapu teaches in Figure 6, the guide rail basket (4a) comprises side supports (9) extending above the bottom surface of the guide rail basket (4a).
Regarding claim 7, Kinjarapu teaches in Figure 11, the installation platform (6) is provided with two guide rail baskets (4a and 4b).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 9,592,997 to Mertala in view of US Patent # 11,851,304 to Kinjarapu et al.
Regarding claim 3, Mertala teaches an arrangement with an installation platform but does not teach the installation platform comprises several dedicated support openings. However, Kinjarapu teaches in Figures 5 and 6, an installation platform (6) that comprises several dedicated support openings (8a) [seats (Column 7, Line 55)] whereby upper parts of each guide rail element (1a) is supported separately to the installation platform (6); and shapes of the support openings (8a) correspond to cross-sectional shapes of the guide rail elements (1a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mertala with Kinjarapu and have a reasonable expectation of success because Kinjarapu teaches dedicated support openings allow for effective support (Columns 7-8, Lines 66-1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 9,592,997 to Mertala.
Regarding claim 7, Mertala teaches an arrangement with a guide rail basket but does not teach two guide rail baskets. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to comprise a plurality of guide rail baskets as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In the instant case, having another basket would allow the arrangement to hold more guide rails.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm EST.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights