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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 has a missing connection (seems to be a cable or rope) and box 4 is not textually labeled and fig. 4 is missing all the textual labels from boxes 6, 23, and 24, see requirements under 37 CFR 1.84(o). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference to specific claims must be deleted from the written specification.
Additionally, an amended abstract should be submitted on a separate page. It seems an amended abstract was included in the attorney’s remarks.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-9, 11, 19, 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.
In reference to claims 6, 19, and 20, these claims are directed to the structural components of an elevator arrangement. How does an elevator arrangement comprise a “function” for allowing release of a brake?
In reference to claim 7-9, what is a “counterpart”? The claims must include a definition of said term.
In reference to claim 11, claim 11 has been written as a “method claim” with a preamble including structural limitations of an elevator system. However, the body of the claim does not include a clear set of steps for operating an elevator.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirigu et al (US Patent 8162108).
Claim 1, 11, and 12, Sirigu et al teaches an elevator system 20 comprising: a shaft (represented by the space between ends 28 and 29, as described in col. 4 lines 43-46); an elevator car 24 movable in a vertical direction along the shaft (see fig. 1); a safety device supplied by power from an AC power supply (see for example col. 10 lines 49-52) during normal operation of the elevator arrangement, wherein the safety device includes a plurality of elements to include safety brake 42, safety gear 50, safety devices 60/80, and a series of triggering levers and brackets as described in fig. 2 and corresponding description; and a reserve power source 160, wherein power from the reserve power source is used to supply power to the safety devices when power from AC power supply has been turned off due detecting a person in the shaft area during a recue or maintenance operation. Sirigu et al does not particularly describe the preferred position of where the elevator would stop after the AC power has been cut off.
However, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the recited position, since as described by Sirigu et al in col. 10 lines 49-67 and col. 11 lines 1-10, the elevator arrangement would stop at a location where it would give just enough space above or below the elevator car for rescue personnel to safely rescue passengers trapped inside the elevator car.
In reference to claim 11, as described in the 35 USC 112b rejection above, claim 11 seems to be incomplete because the algorithm (set of method steps) used to control operation of the elevator has not been recited. Therefore, all the structural components recited in the preamble of claim 11 have been described above in the art rejection of claim 1.
In reference to claim 12, Sirigu et al describes in col. 4 lines 44-50 that a motor and a brake are part of their elevator arrangement. In addition to the brake and motor, Sirigu et al also describes in col. 10 lines 14-48 that a series of key switches KS2-KSn are used to detect for example someone’s presence on the car roof or if a landing door is opened by a special key during inspect or maintenance of the elevator system.
Claims 2-5, as discussed in the rejection of claim 12 above, Sirigu et al teaches a series of key switches KS2-KSn for detecting different areas of the elevator system.
Claims 6 and 19-20, Sirigu et al describes the release of a brake device 42 using power from reserve power source 160 when power from an AC power source has been turned off.
Claims 7 and 9, Sirigu et al describes in fig. 2 and corresponding description a series of rods, triggering levers, spring elements, retractable elements on the shaft and elevator car 24 for controlling movement of the elevator car during events such as loss of power from an AC power source or rescue situation.
Claim 8, Sirigu et al describes, for example in figure 1 the arrangement of the different safety devices in the elevator arrangement. Additionally, the preferred position of a sensor or safety device within the elevator system is also considered a design choice and is not given any patentable weight.
Claims 10 and 13-18, as described above in the rejection of claim 12, Sirigu et al describes disabling a brake or providing power from reserve battery 160 to move the elevator car 24 based on someone’s presence in the shaft area of the elevator system using a series of switches KS2-KSn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents cited in the attached PTO-892 describe other elevator systems comprising a safety algorithm for controlling elevator cars during an emergency.
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