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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2024, 05/28/2026 and 07/07/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 31 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested to amend the recited limitations, such as “shaft doors”, “first shaft door”, “second shaft door”, etc. to be related to same limitation recited in claims 19 and 20 to avoid antecedence basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 17-25 and 27-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (JP 2006076738 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation) in view of JP (JPH04201972 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation).
Regarding claims 17 and 29, Ogawa discloses an elevator system (e.g. Abstract & Fig. 6) and a method (e.g. Fig. 8) for operating the elevator system, comprising:
an elevator car (e.g. Fig. 1: 1) configured to move between floors of a building in an elevator shaft (inherently discloses floors of a building and elevator shaft), wherein the elevator car comprises two car doors (e.g. Fig. 1: front and rear doors 3a) comprising electrically controllable door elements,
wherein a first car door is arranged on a first car wall (e.g. Fig. 1: front car door and wall 3a) and comprises a first electrically controllable door element (e.g. Figs. 4-15: 12, 22),
wherein a second car door is arranged on a second car wall (e.g. Fig. 1: rear car door and wall 3a) and comprises a second electrically controllable door element (e.g. Figs. 4-15: 12, 22), and
wherein the first electrically controllable door element and the second electrically controllable door element each are configured to have at least two visual permeability states, wherein in a first visual permeability state, the electrically controllable door elements are configured such that a passenger can at least partially see through the electrically controllable door elements and wherein when the electrically controllable door elements are in a second visual permeability state, a passenger's view through the electrically controllable door elements is substantially obstructed (e.g. p. 7: turbid state when electricity flowing to interlayer 22c, and glass state, i.e. transparent, when electricity not flowing to the interlayer); and an elevator controller (e.g. Fig. 6: 17 & p. 7-8).
Ogawa fails to disclose, but JP teaches an elevator controller configured to control movement of the elevator car and is communicatively coupled to the electrically controllable door elements, wherein the elevator controller is configured to determine a car door to be opened and to control the electrically controllable door element of the car door to be opened in accordance with the first visual permeability state, in order to allow the passenger to see at least partially through the electrically controllable door element of the car door to be opened (e.g. Abstract: glass door becomes visible/transparent when reaching cage stop entrance on each floor).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teachings of Ogawa with the teachings of JP to change visible state of an elevator glass door based on whether elevator door is to be opened (i.e. reaching cage stop entrance) so as to enhance passenger safety and for crime prevention.
Regarding claims 18 and 30, Ogawa discloses the elevator controller is configured to control the electrically controllable door element of a car door which is not to be opened in accordance with the second visual permeability state, in order to substantially obstruct the view through its electrically controllable door element (e.g. p. 7-9: mirror condition).
Regarding claims 19 and 31, JP teaches shaft doors configured to separate the floors from the elevator shaft (e.g. Abstract & Fig. 1: shaft door 1a, 1b on each floor), wherein two shaft doors comprising electrically controllable shaft door elements are arranged on at least one floor, wherein a first shaft door is arranged on a first building wall and comprises a first electrically controllable shaft door element, wherein a second shaft door is arranged on a second building wall and comprises a second electrically controllable shaft door element, and wherein the first electrically controllable shaft door element and the second electrically controllable shaft door element are each configured to have the at least two visual permeability states, wherein in the first visual permeability state, the electrically controllable shaft door elements are configured such that the passenger can at least partially see through the electrically controllable shaft door elements and wherein the second visual permeability state substantially obstructs the passenger's view through the electrically controllable shaft door elements, and wherein the electrically controllable shaft door elements are configured to assume the first visual permeability state in response to an electrical control signal indicating a shaft door to be opened, in order to allow the passenger to see at least partially through the electrically controllable shaft door element of the shaft door to be opened (e.g. Abstract: glass door becomes visible/transparent when reaching cage stop entrance on each floor).
Regarding claims 20 and 32, JP teaches comprising shaft doors (e.g. Abstract & Fig. 1: shaft door 1a, 1b on each floor) configured to separate the floors from the elevator shaft, wherein two shaft doors comprising electrically controllable shaft door elements are arranged on at least one floor, wherein a first shaft door is arranged on a first building wall and comprises a first electrically controllable shaft door element, wherein a second shaft door is arranged on a second building wall and comprises a second electrically controllable shaft door element, and wherein the first electrically controllable shaft door element and the second electrically controllable shaft door element are each configured to have the at least two visual permeability states, wherein in the first visual permeability state, the electrically controllable shaft door elements are configured such that the passenger can at least partially see through the electrically controllable shaft door elements and wherein the second visual permeability state substantially obstructs the passenger's view through the electrically controllable shaft door elements, and wherein the electrically controllable shaft door elements are configured to assume the first visual permeability state in response to an electrical control signal indicating a shaft door to be opened, in order to allow the passenger to see at least partially through the electrically controllable shaft door element of the shaft door to be opened (e.g. Abstract: glass door becomes visible/transparent when reaching cage stop entrance on each floor).
Regarding claim 21, Ogawa discloses each electrically controllable shaft door element is communicatively coupled to the elevator controller or wherein each electrically controllable shaft door element comprises an electrical shaft door contact element which is configured to be complementary to an electrical car door contact element arranged on or near each of the car doors (e.g. Fig. 6: 14, 15, 17), wherein the electrical shaft door contact element and the electrical car door contact element are configured to transmit the electrical control signal if the car door couples to the shaft door (e.g. p. 7-8: verify basket 1 aligned with floor 6; hence, align with shaft door 8 based on engagement signal between elements 14-15 transmitted to controller 17).
Regarding claim 22, JP teaches the elevator controller is configured to control the electrically controllable door element of the car door to be opened in accordance with the first visual permeability state, wherein the electrically controllable shaft door element of the shaft door to be opened is controlled in accordance with the first visual permeability state, in order to allow the passenger to see at least partially through the electrically controllable door elements of the car door and shaft door to be opened (e.g. Abstract: glass door becomes visible/transparent when reaching cage stop entrance on each floor).
Regarding claims 23-24 and 33, Ogawa discloses the elevator controller is configured to control the electrically controllable door element of the car door not to be opened in accordance with the second visual permeability state, wherein the electrically controllable shaft door element of the shaft door not to be opened is in the second visual permeability state (e.g. Fig. 7: 3a in mirror condition, not to be opened).
Regarding claim 25, Ogawa discloses the electrically controllable door elements comprise glass inserts inserted into the car doors (e.g. Figs. 14-15: 22), wherein the glass inserts comprise a smart glass, which is substantially transparent in the first visual permeability state and is substantially opaque in the second visual permeability state (e.g. p. 7: turbid state when electricity flowing to interlayer 22c, and glass state, i.e. transparent, when electricity not flowing to the interlayer).
Regarding claims 27 and 34-35, Ogawa discloses comprising a position determining device which is configured to determine a position of the elevator car in the elevator shaft (e.g. Fig. 16: 14-15), wherein the elevator controller is configured to control the electrically controllable door element of the car door to be opened while the elevator car is moving to a floor on which the elevator car is to stop, in such a way that a change to the first visual permeability state takes place depending on the position and the floor on which the elevator car is to stop while the elevator car is moving (e.g. Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 28, Ogawa discloses the two car doors each comprise a frame structure which is configured to support the electrically controllable door element and with which the car door is arranged on the car wall, in particular, the electrically controllable door element of the first car door and the electrically controllable door element of the second car door each comprise a vertical surface in the frame structure which substantially corresponds to a vertical surface of the car door (e.g. Figs. 11-13: 3d-3e support door element 12, 21).
Regarding claim 36, JP discloses:
determining, with a use of a floor or a part of a building defined in a building plan, whether the floor or the part of the building defined in the building plan is defined as visible on non-visible in the building plan as the ride passes the floor or the part of the building defined in the building plan (e.g. Abstract: building plan: glass door becomes visible/transparent when reaching cage stop entrance on each floor only because it is unsightly to see steel frame and wall inside elevator shaft); and
controlling at least one of the electrically controllable door element of the car door or an electrically controllable shaft door element during the ride in the first visual permeability or second visual permeability state depending on the position and the use of the floor or the part of the building defined in the building plan (e.g. Abstract: glass door becomes visible/transparent when reaching cage stop entrance on each floor).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (JP 2006076738 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation) in view of JP (JPH04201972 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Muramatsu (JP 05222884 A) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided equivalent English machine translation).
Regarding claim 26, Ogawa fails to disclose, but Muramatsu teaches the electrically controllable door elements comprise electromechanically adjustable slat systems (e.g. Figs. 1-2: 7) inserted into the two car doors, wherein in the first visual permeability state, slats of the electromechanically adjustable slat systems are configured to be adjustable such that substantially there is visual permeability and in the second visual permeability state, the slats are configured to be adjustable such that substantially there is no visual permeability (e.g. [0006-0007]).
Both Ogawa and Muramatsu discloses glass door that can change visual permeability state.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teachings of Ogawa with the teachings of Muramatsu to replace the door element of Ogawa with electromechanical slat as taught by Muramatsu to change visual permeability state of an elevator glass door. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art since both the glass door visual permeability changing element and method are known in the art, and it is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another according to KSR.
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