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
Figure 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because it fails to show a marking element in the form of a cylinder as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 of 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.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 is a method claim that improperly recites both a method for determining the position of an elevator car and the functional capabilities of the apparatus component recited in claim 12. The two wherein clauses (lines 7-10) recite internal functions of the evaluation unit (a structural component) rather than active method steps. A single claim that recites both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus is considered ambiguous. Would infringement occur when the “apparatus” is manufactured with the recited structural components, or only when the apparatus performs the recited steps? Correction is required.
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) 12-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Studer et al (US Publication 2019/0210838) and Send et al (US Publication 20180210064).
Claims 12 and 22, Studer et al teaches a system and a method for determining the position of an elevator car 3 movable in an elevator shaft 7 of an elevator system comprising: a position sensor 19 as well as sensor 22 coupled to the top of elevator car 3 (as shown in fig. 1) for detecting the position of the elevator car; an evaluation unit that includes a car safety supervising unit (car SSU) 35, a head supervising unit (head SSU) 37, and a data linkage 38 used by the car SSU and head SSU to communicate with each other; a marking elements 20 arranged immovably in the elevator shaft 7, wherein the position sensors identify the position of the markings 20 and a distance to the top of the elevator shaft in order to send the detected information to car SSU 35 and head SSU 37 to obtain the position of the elevator car. Additionally, Studer et al teaches operating the elevator system in either a normal operation mode (see paragraph 0074) or a failure operation mode (see for example paragraphs 0075-0076) when position feedback cannot be obtained due to a break in the communication between the car SSU and the head SSU or a failure in the data linkage 38.
Studer et al teaches a method for determining the position of an elevator car by using feedback between a movable sensor coupled to the elevator car and a stationary element such as markings 20 and also operating the elevator system in an error or failure mode when no communication between the circuit elements is detected. Although the preferred type of position sensor is considered a design choice, a secondary reference will be provided to show that 3D sensors are commonly used in elevator system to determine the position of an elevator car or any other preferred object.
Send et al teaches a detector for determining the position of at least one object comprising: a detector system including a detector 110 which can be embodied as a 3D camera 111 and beacon devices 116 (markings), wherein the detector system also includes a scanning system 127 and at least one illumination source 129 for emitting a light beam 120 for illuminating at least one dot positioned on the beacon devices located on an object (the object can take many forms one of which is described as an elevator unit see for example the description in paragraph 0171). Additionally, scanning system 127 generates information about the distance between at least one dot (on a beacon) and detector 110 (described as having for example optical sensors 112, see paragraphs 0339 and 0346 for a detailed description of the sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a 3D sensor, in the elevator system described by Studer et al, to determine the position of the elevator car since 3D cameras provide the location of the elevator car in all directions (taking into consideration even tilt or sway of the car during travel) with high precision.
Claim 13, Studer et al teaches determining there is an error in communication between the sensors and car SSU 35/head SSU 37 when the data linkage 38 is not operating properly within a predetermined amount of time (time that takes for the elevator car to move from location to location in the elevator shaft).
Claim 14, Studer et al describes, paragraph 0019, the use of transmitters and beacons for evaluating the position and distance of the elevator car. Send et al also teaches in paragraph 0252 the use of transmitters.
Claims 15-16 and 19, Studer et al describes the use of markings 20 in combination with sensors 19 and 22 to detect the position of the elevator car as well as the distance of the car from a set position. Send et al teaches the details of how a 3D camera determines the position of an object.
Claims 17-18, Send et al describes for example in paragraphs 0049, 0111, and 0213 the use of a marking (beacons) using LEDs.
Claim 20, Send et al describes a reflector element arranged around the marking 116 (see for example the description given in paragraphs 0111, 0146, and 0147).
Claim 21, as described above in the rejection of claims 12 and 22, Studer et al/Send et al teach an elevator system as recited in claims 12/22 as well as a shaft 7 and elevator car 3 movable in the shaft 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed in the attached PTO-892 describe elevator system comprising an elevator car traveling in an elevator shaft, a position sensor, and an evaluation unit for assessing the detected position and controlling operation of the elevator car between a normal mode of operation and a failure mode of operation.
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.
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