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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the recited limitation: “a component to be cooled that is used for drive control of a hoisting machine”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “a component to be cooled that is used for drive and control of a hoisting machine”. 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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recited limitations “a component to be cooled that is used for drive control of a hoisting machine” and “controlling to drive and control the hoisting machine and to perform a normal operation and an efficient heat generation operation of causing the component to be cooled to generate heat” renders the claim indefinite. For example,
It is unclear what “normal operation” does; it does not clearly state the normal operation of the component of the hoisting machine, and it does not clearly state what is considered as normal operation;
It is unclear how “drive and control the hoisting machine” relate to “normal operation” and “efficient heat generation”. According to claims 2-4, they are related, but claim 1 fails to clearly state how they are related. Although the recited “component” is for drive and control the hoisting machine, driving and controlling the hoisting machine does not necessarily require drive and control of the component.
Regarding claim 3, the recited limitation “a car” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the recited limitation and the “component” and/or “hoisting machine” are related to each other.
Regarding claim 7, the recited limitation “a normal time” renders the claim indefinite. The scope of the recited limitation is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the recited limitation refers to the time for the temperature rise during the normal operation.
Regarding claim 9, the recited limitation “in the temperature measurement values” renders the claim indefinite. The claim uses “or” and plurality of “,” to combine limitations together, and the meaning and scope of the recited limitation is unclear when viewing in combination with other limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the recited limitation “an elevator” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the recited limitation relate to “elevator control device”, “component” and/or “hoisting machine”.
In addition, claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10-13 are indefinite since they are either directly or indirectly depend on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 11, the recited limitation “a single temperature sensor of the temperature sensors is provided” does not further limit “one or more of the temperature sensors are provided” as recited in claim 10. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka (US 20070089938 A1) in view of Nojima (JP 2009218073 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided English equivalent machine translation) and Yoshida et al. (US 2018/0128155 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishioka discloses an elevator control device (e.g. Fig. 18: 102, 108) comprising:
a temperature sensor (e.g. [0224]) to measure a temperature of the component to be cooled (e.g. [0286-0287]);
a processor (e.g. Fig. 18: 102, 108 & Fig. 32: 201; [0286]: speed monitoring could be temperature monitoring) to execute a program including software modules (e.g. [0236]); and
a memory (e.g. Fig. 32: 209) to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes of,
controlling to drive and control the hoisting machine and to perform a normal operation (e.g. [0139-0150]).
Ishioka fails to disclose, but Nojima teaches
a cooling fan (e.g. Fig. 1: 203);
a component (e.g. Fig. 1: 12, 12A) to be cooled that is used for drive control of a hoisting machine (e.g. Fig. 1: 2-5 & 12) and is cooled by the cooling fan.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize a fan to cool down control device of an elevator so as to prevent overheat of the control device to maintain normal operation of the elevator.
Ishioka and Nojima in combination fails to disclose, but Yoshida teaches controlling to perform an efficient heat generation operation of causing the component to be cooled to generate heat for diagnosis to a temperature higher than a temperature during the normal operation (e.g. claim 1: first mode: stopping cooling system to increase temperature); and diagnosing a cooling effect of the component to be cooled on a basis of temperature measurement values obtained from the temperature sensor during the efficient heat generation operation (e.g. claim 1: diagnose whether the cooling system is in a normal condition based on temperature fluctuation during the first mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to diagnose the cooling system of Nojima based on the process as taught by Yoshida (i.e. stopping the cooling of Nojima to determine whether fluctuation of temperature in a period of time is within an acceptable range). The combination would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art since it is merely utilizing well-known method in a well-known device ready for improvement. The modification would help to diagnosis abnormality of a cooling system in an early stage (e.g. Yoshida: [0005]).
Regarding claim 13, Nojima teaches the program controls the hoisting machine so as to suppress heat generation of the component to be cooled to a temperature lower than a temperature during the normal operation when the program determines that an abnormality has occurred (e.g. Abstract: stopping the elevator).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka (US 20070089938 A1) in view of Nojima (JP 2009218073 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided English equivalent machine translation) and Yoshida et al. (US 2018/0128155 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sonnenmoser et al. (US 2020/0339384 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Ishioka, Nojima and Yoshida in combination fails to disclose, but Sonnenmoser teaches the program transmits basic specification information or operation information of an elevator, and diagnosis data based on the temperature measurement values obtained from the temperature sensor during the efficient heat generation operation (e.g. [0012, 0019, 0025, 0035, 0037]) to an external database (e.g. Fig. 1: 20-24) connected to a plurality of elevator apparatuses (e.g. Fig. 1: 100-300) via a communication device (e.g. Fig. 1: 16).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ishioka, Nojima and Yoshida with the teachings of Sonnenmoser to transmit elevator operation data including diagnosis data (e.g. data regarding overheat) to external database to perform further evaluation (e.g. [0024]) to ensure elevator working properly and safely.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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.
/KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights