DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending. Claim 2 remains withdrawn, Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-12 have been amended. Claims 13-20 are canceled. Claims 21-23 are newly added.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 03/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10-12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2013/0171463 A1) in view of Pan et al. (US 2020/0152355 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses an assembly (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
at least one elevator (As shown in Fig. 1) suspension member (Fig. 2, “tension members”, 36);
a jacket (Fig. 2, “jacket” 34) that encases the at least one elevator suspension member and provides an external surface (As shown in Fig. 2),
wherein the jacket comprises a first type of material (Fig. 2, material of jacket 34); and
a rodent deterrent additive applied to the suspension member (“The third corrosion inhibiter may include an organic material selected from benzoates, phthalates, acetates, salicylates, succinates, carboxylates, and combinations thereof. The organic materials may be used alone or in combination, and may be used in combinations with one or more metals of the first corrosion inhibiter and one or more rare earth metals of the second corrosion inhibiter. In a further example, the protective coating 44 includes only the first corrosion inhibitor, the second corrosion inhibitor, and the third corrosion inhibitor, as described in the above examples.”, Para. [0021]; note, applicant’s specification discloses “benzoate” as a rodent deterrent in para. [0037]).
Chang does not expressly disclose a rodent deterrent additive applied to the first type of material.
However, in an analogous cable jacket art, Pan discloses a rodent deterrent additive applied to the first type of material (Figs. 1-3, cover layer 2; “The cover layer surrounds the at least one core cable, and the cover layer contains a peppery agent. The content of the peppery agent is between 2 wt % and 5 wt % of the total weight of the cover layer. The peppery agent includes 10 wt % to 30 wt % of capsaicin or dihydrocapsaicin, and includes 70 wt % to 90 wt % of nonivamide. In certain embodiments, the peppery agent is present in the cover layer in the form of micro-capsules.”, Paras. [0011]-[0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the jacket of Change further including a rodent deterrent additive applied to the first type of material, as disclosed by Pan, with a reasonable expectation for success, “In order to prevent the cable from biting by pests such as termites and rodents”, as discussed by Pan, Para. [0005].
Regarding claim 10, Pan further discloses wherein the rodent deterrent additive comprises a natural repellant material (“The peppery agent may be a natural agent that includes capsaicin and/or analogues thereof Specific examples of the capsaicin analogue include dihydrocapsaicin, nordihydrocapsaicin, homodihydrocapsaicin and homocapsaicin”, Para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 11, Pan further discloses wherein the rodent deterrent additive comprises a chemical material that deters rodents from gnawing on portions of the jacket (“the cover layer 2 can provide a desired bite-resistant effect in a chemical manner. More specifically, the cover layer 2 can contain a peppery agent. The content of the peppery agent can be between 0.5 wt % and 5 wt %, for example 1 wt %, 1.5 wt %, 2 wt %, 2.5 wt %, 3 wt %, 3.5 wt %, 4 wt % or 4.5 wt %, preferably between 2 wt % and 5 wt %, of the total weight of the cover layer 2.”, Para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Chang further discloses wherein the at least one suspension member comprises a plurality of tension members encased within the jacket (As shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Chang further discloses including an elevator car moveable within a hoistway, and wherein the at least one elevator suspension member supports the elevator car and facilitates movement of the elevator car within the hoistway (As shown in Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3-6, 9, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2013/0171463 A1) in view of Pan et al. (US 2020/0152355 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zapf (EP 3290376 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Chang does not expressly disclose wherein the rodent deterrent additive only covers pre-identified portions of the external surface of the jacket.
However, in an analogous elevator art, Zapf teaches wherein the rodent deterrent additive only covers pre-identified portions of the external surface of the jacket (Fig. 1, “pigment”, 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Chang wherein the rodent deterrent additive only covers pre-identified portions of the external surface of the jacket, as taught by Zapf, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide an aging indicator and such that less rat deterrent is used, saving cost and reducing the toxicity.
Regarding claim 4, Zapf further discloses wherein the external surface comprises a first surface, a second surface facing opposite the first surface, and edges extending between the first surface and the second surface, and wherein the pre-identified portions of the jacket comprise the edges (Fig. 1 shows “pigment” 22 on the edge of the jacket).
Regarding claim 5, Zapf further discloses wherein external surface comprises a first surface, a second surface facing opposite the first surface, and edges extending between the first surface and the second surface, and wherein the pre-identified portions of the jacket comprise at least a portion of at least one of the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 1 shows “pigment” 22 on top or first surface of jacket).
Regarding claim 6, Zapf discloses wherein the external surface comprises a first surface, a second surface facing opposite the first surface, and edges extending between the first surface and the second surface, and wherein the rodent deterrent additive comprises an ink that is printed on at least one of the first surface, the second surface, or the edges (“For example, the pigments 24 may be directly printed or painted on the traction means 10.”, Para. [0040]; note, Pan is relied upon above for disclosing the rodent deterrent additive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Chang wherein the external surface comprises a first surface, a second surface facing opposite the first surface, and edges extending between the first surface and the second surface, and wherein the rodent deterrent additive is incorporated into an ink that is printable on at least one of the first surface, the second surface, or the edges, as taught by Zapf, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide a means to apply the rat deterrent on pre-existing cable jackets.
Regarding claim 9, Zapf further discloses wherein the ink c is printed as character printing extending along at least one of the first surface and the second surface (“Besides the visual indicator 22, a code field 28 may be provided on the traction means 10. The code field 28 may be directly provided on the traction means 10 or may be provided on the foil 26. The code field 28 may contain human and/or computer-readable information.”, Para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 22, Zapf further discloses wherein the rodent deterrent additive is directly printed on the external surface of the jacket (“For example, the pigments 24 may be directly printed or painted on the traction means 10.”, Para. [0040]; note, Pan is relied upon above for disclosing the rodent deterrent additive).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2013/0171463 A1) in view of Pan et al. (US 2020/0152355 A1), further in view of Zapf (EP 3290376 A1), as applied to claims 6 and 22 above, further in view of Gurvich (US 2019/0218063 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Chang does not expressly disclose wherein the ink is printed as one continuous line extending along at least one of the first surface and the second surface.
However, in an analogous elevator jacket art, Gurvich teaches wherein the ink is printed as one continuous line extending along at least one of the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 4B and Fig. 5B, lines 52; “In the embodiment of FIGS. 4A and 4B, the second polymer of the outer portion 48 includes a fluorescent or absorbing or reflecting material, while the first polymer of the inner portion 46 is absent such a fluorescent or absorbing or reflecting material. In this embodiment, when the belt 16 wears, as indicated by wear line 50, first areas 52 of the belt 16 that exhibit fluorescence or absorbance or reflection under inspection are those that are not excessively worn, while second areas 54 that do not exhibit fluorescence or absorbance or reflection are those that are worn beyond a thickness of the outer portion 48.”, Para. [0053]; note, Zapf is relied upon above for printing pigment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Chang wherein the ink is printed as one continuous line extending along at least one of the first surface and the second surface, as taught by Gurvich, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide an aging indicator and ensure the rat deterrent extends along the entire length of the belt.
Regarding claim 8, Gurvich further teaches wherein the ink is printed as one continuous line extending along each of the edges (Figs. 4A-5B; note, Zapf is relied upon above for printing pigment).
Regarding claim 23, Gurvich further teaches wherein the rodent deterrent additive is printed as one continuous line extending along the external surface of the jacket (Fig. 4B and Fig. 5B, lines 52; “In the embodiment of FIGS. 4A and 4B, the second polymer of the outer portion 48 includes a fluorescent or absorbing or reflecting material, while the first polymer of the inner portion 46 is absent such a fluorescent or absorbing or reflecting material. In this embodiment, when the belt 16 wears, as indicated by wear line 50, first areas 52 of the belt 16 that exhibit fluorescence or absorbance or reflection under inspection are those that are not excessively worn, while second areas 54 that do not exhibit fluorescence or absorbance or reflection are those that are worn beyond a thickness of the outer portion 48.”, Para. [0053]); note, Pan is relied upon above for disclosing the rodent deterrent additive).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 regarding the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on Pan et al. (US 2020/0152355 A1) for the amended limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
