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 § 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.
Claims 16-18 and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORBRUEGGER WO 2006/119787 A1 in a view of ISHIGURO WO 2020070829 A1.
Regarding claim 16, HORBRUEGGER discloses
, wherein the elevator system has an elevator shaft (hoist), a car (fig. 1, item 10) arranged in the elevator shaft, a counterweight (item 11) arranged in the elevator shaft and being connected to the car by a carrying means (item 14), an electric motor (synchronous motor) having a traction sheave (item 31) over which traction sheave the carrying means runs, wherein the electric motor rotates the traction sheave to move the carrying means so that the car and the counterweight are displaced vertically (page 6, lines 174-194. Fig. 1 shows vertical orientation), and a brake (item 32) by which the car and/or the counterweight is braked and/or stopped (page 6, lines 192-197), the method comprising: receiving a load signal (via item 5) representative of a weight of a load located in the car, the load intended to be transported by the car; determining a preliminary torque (item 401) depending on the load signal; receiving a speed signal (item 202) representative of an actual speed of the car; wherein the correction torque is determined depending on the speed signal and a specified reference speed, and using the preliminary torque and the correction torque to control the electric motor such that the actual speed of the car approximates the reference speed (page 7, lines 207-229, whole pages 8 and 9, page 11, lines 361-363, page 12, lines 385-395).
HORBRUEGGER does not disclose but ISHIGURO discloses
A method for identifying a situation of being stuck in an elevator system (restricted from moving)
monitoring a correction torque (by limiting the generated torque) over a specified monitoring time period (fig. 3 shows time axis),
identifying the situation of being stuck, in which the car or the counterweight remains stuck in the elevator shaft when the monitored correction torque meets at least one specified criterion; and performing a specified safety measure (shutoff command) when the situation of being stuck is identified.
PNG
media_image1.png
735
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify a situation of being stuck in an elevator system by monitoring a correction torque and meeting specified criterion and performing a safety measure as taught by ISHIGURO in HORBRUEGGER’s teachings to regulate the generated torque generated by the hoist so that the obtained generated torque is less than an abnormal torque which is a generated torque obtained when, in a state where movement of an elevating body of either one of the car or the balance weight is restricted (see ISHIGURO’s abstract section).
Regarding claim 17, ISHIGURO discloses
wherein, when monitoring the correction torque, determining a maximum correction torque and a minimum correction torque within the specified time period, and wherein the at least one specified criterion is met if a difference between the maximum correction torque (a temporal change in the absolute value of the generated torque T) and the minimum correction torque is greater than a specified threshold.
PNG
media_image2.png
819
918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, HORBRUEGGER discloses
determining a total torque (item 205) depending on the preliminary torque and the correction torque, and determining at least one reference current (a drive command value generates current to drive the motor) for operating the electric motor depending on the total torque (page 8, lines 260-264, page 9, lines 265-269).
Regarding claim 24, ISHIGURO discloses
wherein the specified safety measure comprises stopping the electric motor and/or generating an error message.
PNG
media_image3.png
78
869
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, ISHIGURO discloses
starting monitoring of the correction torque when at least one specified starting condition (accelerates) is met.
PNG
media_image4.png
421
888
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, HORBRUEGGER discloses
wherein the at least one specified starting condition comprises: the correction torque is determined twice in a row (fig. 5 shows a feedback loop runs continuously), and the correction torque meets the at least one specified criterion in both determinations; the reference speed is not equal to zero; and/or after the car has started moving, a specified run-up period has elapsed (page 2, lines 207-220, page 8, lines 248-264, page 3, lines 265-270).
Regarding claim 27, HORBRUEGGER discloses
A control device (fig. 5, item 6) for an elevator system, the control device including a processor (Item 6 has a computing circuit 61) adapted to perform the method according to Claim 16 and a weight sensor (item 5) generating the load signal (page 9, lines 270-291).
Regarding claim 28, a combination of HORBRUEGGER and ISHIGURO discloses
An elevator system (HORBRUEGGER’s figs. 1 and 5) comprising: the control device according to Claim 27; an elevator shaft; a car arranged in the elevator shaft; a counterweight arranged in the elevator shaft and connected to the car by a carrying means; an electric motor having a traction sheave over which traction sheave the carrying means runs, wherein the electric motor rotates the traction sheave to move the carrying means so that the car and the counterweight are displaced vertically; and a brake by which the car and/or the counterweight is braked and/or stopped (see claims 16 and 27 for details).
Regarding claim 29, a combination of HORBRUEGGER and ISHIGURO discloses
A computer program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (item 61 inherently has a memory to perform calculations) and comprising commands that when executed by a processor cause the method steps according to Claim 16 to be carried out (see claim 16 rejection for details) (page 10, lines 298-304).
Regarding claim 30, a combination of HORBRUEGGER and ISHIGURO discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable medium (item 61 inherently has a memory to perform calculations) on which the computer program according to Claim 29 is stored (see claim 29 rejection for detail).
Claims 19, 20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORBRUEGGER WO 2006/119787 A1 in a view of ISHIGURO WO 2020070829 A1 and further in a view of ITO US 2017/0297859 A1.
Regarding claim 19, a combination of HORBRUEGGER and ISHIGURO does not disclose but ITO discloses wherein the preliminary torque (T) comprises a load torque (TL) added to an acceleration torque (Ta) [0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a load torque and an acceleration torque as disclosed by ITO in HORBRUEGGER’s teachings to avoid problem occur due to rope imbalance (ITO’s paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 20, a combination of HORBRUEGGER, ISHIGURO and ITO disclose determining the load torque such that, when the brake is released, the car does not move as a result of the determined load torque alone (ITO’s paragraph 0152).
Regarding claim 22, a combination of HORBRUEGGER, ISHIGURO and ITO disclose determining the acceleration torque such that the car moves with a reference acceleration (ITO’s command value) due to the acceleration torque [0036].
Regarding claim 23, a combination of HORBRUEGGER, ISHIGURO and ITO disclose determining a current mass moment of inertia representative of a current mass inertia of the elevator system, and determining the acceleration torque depending on the current mass moment of inertia and a reference acceleration (acceleration torque component) [ ITO’s 0058, 0059].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORBRUEGGER WO 2006/119787 A1 in a view of ISHIGURO WO 2020070829 A1 further in a view of ITO US 2017/0297859 A1 and further in a view of Yamasaki US 4,766,977.
Regarding claim 21, a combination of HORBRUEGGER, ISHIGURO and ITO does not disclose but Yamasaki discloses wherein the load signal is representative of a difference between a first weight suspended on a side of the traction sheave on which the counterweight is suspended and a second weight suspended on a side of the traction sheave on which the car (cage) is suspended, and the load torque is determined depending on the load signal (see abstract section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use difference in weights suspended as taught by Yamasaki in HORBRUEGGER’s teachings to detect with precision an unbalanced load.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
STOLT et al. (US 2010/0300815 A1) disclose a determination of the loading state of an elevator system.
Jokinen (US 2012/0217097 A1) discloses a method for detaching an elevator car.
HELVILA et al. (US 2015/0114761 A1) disclose stall condition detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights