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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species B in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II and Species A, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/05/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/01/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and 3-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one suspension member that supports an elevator car and facilitates movement of the elevator car within a hoistway”. However, the “elevator car” and “hoistway” are not positively claimed as components of the “assembly”. Therefore, it is unclear and vague if the assembly claimed comprises “an elevator car” and “a hoistway” and the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the assembly comprises “an elevator car” and “a hoistway”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a rodent deterrent additive associated with the first type of material”. It is unclear how this rodent deterrent additive is associated with the first type of material such as is it the “first type of material”, is it just added to the “first type of material”, or neither. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the rodent deterrent additive only covers pre-identified portions of the jacket”. It is unclear how a “only covers pre-identified portions of the jacket” are an “additive” to the “first type of material” of the “jacket”. Covering a material is not functioning as an “additive associated with the first type of material”, as required by claim 1. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “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”. First, it is noted that the ink is only required as capable of being printed on the surface, not necessarily that the ink is printed onto the surface. Second, it is unclear how ink covering a surface of the jacket is an “additive associated with the first type of material”, as required by claim 1. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.
Claims 7-8 recites the limitations “wherein the ink comprises one continuous line”. It is unclear how the ink composition or material itself can comprise “one continuous line”. Therefore, the claims are vague and indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the ink is printed as one continuous line”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the ink comprises character printing”. It is unclear how the ink composition or material itself can comprise “character printing”. Therefore, the claims are vague and indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “wherein the ink is printed as character printing”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the rodent deterrent additive comprises a chemical material”. It is unclear what is or is not included in “chemical material”, as every material contains a “chemical”. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.
Claims 4-5, 10, and 12 inherit the deficiencies as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims rejected herein under 35 USC 112(b), if rejected below under 35 USC 102 or 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 2013/0171463 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches an assembly (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
at least one suspension member (Fig. 2, “tension members”, 36) that supports an elevator car and facilitates movement of the elevator car within a hoistway (As shown in Fig. 1);
a jacket (Fig. 2, “jacket” 34) that encases the at least one suspension member (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 associated with the first type of material (“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]).
Regarding claim 10, Chang further teaches wherein the rodent deterrent additive comprises a natural repellant material (“In one example, the corrosion inhibiter solution includes an oxide-forming metal salt, a rare earth metal salt, and an organic salt.”, Para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Chang further teaches wherein the rodent deterrent additive comprises a chemical material (“The oxide-forming metal salt, which later reduces to the first corrosion inhibiter, may be an alkali metal salt of iron, zinc, aluminum, copper, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, or combination thereof, such as M.sub.2MoO.sub.4, M.sub.2WO.sub.4, MCrO.sub.2, where M is the alkali metal. The rare earth metal salt, which reduces to the second corrosion inhibitor, may be CeX.sub.3, LaX.sub.3, YX.sub.3, or combination thereof, where X is a halogen. The organic salt, which reduces to the third corrosion inhibitor, may be an alkali metal salt of a benzoate, phthalate, acetate, salicylate, succinate or combination thereof.”, Para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 12, Chang further teaches wherein the at least one suspension member comprises a plurality of tension members encased within the jacket (As shown in Fig. 2).
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.
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) 3-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2013/0171463 A1) 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 jacket.
However, in an analogous elevator art, Zapf teaches wherein the rodent deterrent additive only covers pre-identified portions 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 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 jacket has 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 the jacket has 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 teaches wherein the jacket has 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 (“For example, the pigments 24 may be directly printed or painted on the traction means 10.”, Para. [0040]).
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 jacket has 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 teaches wherein the ink comprises 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]).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2013/0171463 A1) in view of Zapf (EP 3290376 A1) and Gurvich (US 2019/0218063 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Chang as modified by Zapf does not expressly disclose wherein the ink comprises 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 comprises 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]).
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 comprises 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 comprises one continuous line extending along each of the edges (Figs. 4A-5B).
Conclusion
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