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 .
This is the first action on the merits of application 18/791,083. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 6-18 and 20 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 6 recites the limitation "the at least remotely operated switch" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least remotely operated switch" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the at least one remotely operated switch" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the controller" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3301051 A1 (Studer).
Regarding claim 1, Studer discloses:
An elevator system comprising:
at least one light (28) arranged in an elevator shaft (12); and
a light switch (36) associated with the at least one light and configured to operate a state (on/off) of the at least one light,
wherein the at least one light is configured to be remotely controllable (by control device 16).
Regarding claim 3, Studer further discloses:
further comprising at least one remotely operated switch (34) comprising a first remotely operated switch arranged in series with the light switch (34 and 36 are arranged in series) to enable switching off the at least one light irrespective of the state of the light switch (light 28 is off when 34 is off irrespective of the state of 36).
Regarding claim 8, Studer further discloses:
further comprising a controller (16) configured to control the at least remotely operated switch.
Regarding claim 9, Studer further discloses:
wherein the controller (16) is configured to detect the state of the light switch (“The elevator control device 16 or a control program 40 arranged in the elevator control device 16 then activates the first switching element 34 and thus the shaft lighting 28 only if the elevator control device 16 is placed in the inspection mode and the second switching element 36 is switched or the corresponding input has been made to the operating unit.” Paragraph [0036, lines 3-7), and when detecting a use of the light switch, the controller is configured to control the at least one remotely operated switch so that the light switch has a control over the at least one light.
Regarding claim 16, Studer further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to detect an operation mode change of an elevator from a maintenance state to a normal state, and to control the at least one remotely operated switch to switch the at least one light off in response to detecting the operation mode change from the maintenance state to the normal state (“When the inspection mode is ended, the elevator control device 16 generates a control signal 38 which causes the first switching element 34 to be turned off.” Paragraph [0043] of the attached machine translation, lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 17, Studer further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to detect an operation mode change of an elevator from a maintenance state to a normal state, and to control the at least one remotely operated switch to switch the at least one light off in response to detecting the operation mode change from the maintenance state to the normal state and when a preset time has passed after the operation mode change (“…the shaft lighting 28 can be automatically switched off for example briefly or can be switched on and off cyclically during a predetermined or predeterminable period of time whenever a technician leaves the elevator shaft 12” paragraph [0047], lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 18, Studer further discloses:
further comprising alerting means (flashing light), wherein the controller is configured to initiate an alert with the alerting means, when detecting an operation mode change of an elevator from a maintenance state to a normal state and the at least one light is on (“Such a special control signal 38 causes the shaft lighting 28 to blink when the second switching element 36 (or a second switching element 36) is switched on while the elevator installation 10 is not in the inspection mode.” Paragraph [0045] of the attached machine translation, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 20, Studer further discloses:
wherein the controller comprises an elevator controller or an elevator group controller (16 is an “elevator control device”).
Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220024716 A1 (Hosemann et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Hosemann et al. disclose:
An elevator system comprising:
at least one light (4a) arranged in an elevator shaft (5); and
a light switch (4) associated with the at least one light and configured to operate a state (on/off) of the at least one light,
wherein the at least one light is configured to be remotely controllable (by user interface 17a).
Regarding claim 2, Hosemann et al. further disclose:
wherein the light switch comprises a remotely operated switch configured to remotely control the state of the light switch (light switch 4 is configured to be remotely controlled through gateway interface 24 that connects the control systems of connected elevators).
Regarding claim 6, Hosemann et al. further disclose:
wherein the at least remotely operated switch (4) is connected to an elevator communication network of the elevator system (including interfaces 17a, 17b).
Regarding claim 7, Hosemann et al. further disclose:
wherein the elevator communication network comprises an Ethernet-based communication network (paragraph [0007], “The first assembly and the second assembly can communicate (e.g. by ethernet or bus system)” lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 19, Hosemann et al. further disclose:
wherein the light switch (4) is located in an elevator machine room, a shaft electrification panel or a maintenance access panel (17a is a fixed user interface, “e.g. an inspection operation panel or a LOP (Landing Operation Panel)” paragraph [0012], lines 2-4).
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.
Claims 1, 8, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10526168 B2 (Litteral et al.) in view of EP 3301051 A1 (Studer).
Regarding claim 1, Litteral et al. teach:
An elevator system comprising:
at least one light (46) arranged in an elevator shaft (18); and
a light switch (44) associated with the at least one light and configured to operate a state (on/off) of the at least one light.
Litteral et al. are silent to the light being configured to be remotely controllable.
However, Studer teaches:
An elevator system with a light switch,
wherein the at least one light is configured to be remotely controllable (by control device 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the light of Litteral et al. remotely controllable, as taught by Studer, to allow the maintenance worker to turn the light on when away from the switch. Litteral et al. are silent to the location of the light switch 44, it may not be easily accessible for the worker for example when the worker is performing maintenance on top of the elevator car.
Regarding claim 8, Litteral et al. further teach:
further comprising a controller (34b) configured to control the at least remotely operated switch (in the combination of Litteral et al. and Studer the controller 34b controls the remotely operated switch).
Regarding claim 10, Litteral et al. further teach:
wherein the controller (34b) is configured to detect the state of the light switch (44, i.e. the fifth signal), and to transmit the state of the light switch to a remote node (36b).
Regarding claim 11, Litteral et al. further teach:
wherein the controller (34b) is configured to transmit the state of the light switch (44) to the remote node after an expiration of a preset time (5 seconds) when the at least one light is on (col. 6, lines 9-18).
Regarding claim 12, Litteral et al. further teach:
wherein the controller (34b) is configured to transmit the state of the light switch (44) to the remote node (36b) when an operation mode of an elevator has changed from a maintenance state to a normal state and the at least one light is on (col. 6, lines 9-18).
Regarding claim 13, Litteral et al. further teach:
wherein the controller (34b) is configured to transmit the state of the light switch (44) to the remote node (36b), when an operation mode of an elevator has changed from a maintenance state to a normal state and the at least one light (46) is on and a preset time (5 seconds) has passed after the operation mode change (col. 6, lines 29-42).
Regarding claim 15, Litteral et al. further teach:
wherein the remote node comprises an internal node of the elevator system, a node external to the elevator system, a cloud node, a building management system node, or a remote service center node (36b comprises an internal node of the elevator system).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3301051 A1 (Studer) in view of US 20140166447 A1 (Thea et al., Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 4, Studer teaches:
The elevator system of claim 3.
Studer does not teach:
a second remotely operated switch arranged in parallel with the light switch and the first remotely operated switch.
However, Thea et al. teach:
A control system with a switch and a remotely operated switch, and
wherein the at least one remotely operated switch comprises a second remotely operated switch (Auto H mode switch, figure 21) arranged in parallel with the light switch (manual on/off switch) and the first remotely operated switch (Power mode switch) to enable switching on the at least one light irrespective of the state of the light switch (the arrangement of the Power mode switch and the Auto H mode swtich enable switching on of the device irrespective of the state of the manual switch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second remotely operated switch to the system of Studer that is arranged in a configuration to enable switching on of the light irrespective of the state of the light switch as taught by Thea et al. so the shaft can be illuminated remotely without requiring a worker to be in the physical presence of the manual switch.
Regarding claim 5, Studer teaches:
The elevator system of claim 3.
Studer does not teach:
wherein the at least one remotely operated switch comprises a second remotely operated switch arranged in parallel with the light switch.
However, Thea et al. teach
wherein the at least one remotely operated switch comprises a second remotely operated switch (Auto H mode switch) arranged in parallel with the light switch (Manual on/off switch) and wherein the first remotely operated switch (Power mode switch) is connected in series with the parallelly connected light switch and second remotely operated switch to enable switching on the at least one light irrespective of the state of the light switch (the remote switches “power mode” and “auto H mode” are arranged to complete the circuit irrespective of the state of the manual switch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second remotely operated switch to the system of Studer that is arranged in a configuration to enable switching on of the light irrespective of the state of the light switch as taught by Thea et al. so the shaft can be illuminated remotely without requiring a worker to be in the physical presence of the manual switch.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10526168 B2 (Litteral et al.) in view of EP 3301051 A1 (Studer) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of US 20220024716 A1 (Hosemann et al.).
Regarding claim 14, Litteral et al. and Studer teach:
The elevator system of any of claim 10.
Litteral et al. and Studer are silent to the controller receiving instruction to switch off the at least one light from the remote node.
However, Hosemann et al. teach:
wherein the controller (control system 1) is configured to receive, from the remote node (17a, 17b of either elevator system 2, figure 3) an instruction to switch off the at least one light (4a), and to control at least one of the at least one remotely operated switch (4) to switch off the at least one light (4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller 34b of Litteral et al. to receive an instruction from the alarming device 36b an instruction to switch the light off and subsequently control the remotely operated switch to switch off the light, as taught by Hosemann et al., to allow an elevator mechanic in communication with the alarming device (by service device 50) to switch off the light when the mechanic has been alerted that the light is on despite the elevator not being switched into the service mode.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20230257229-A1, US-11072515-B2, US-20210147184-A1, US-20180244496-A1, US-7448473-B2, JP-H1036029-A, CN-205187531-U, and JP-6120789-B2 are cited to show elevator systems with safety circuits and hoistway lighting and switch configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M MUDWILDER whose telephone number is (571)272-6068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am - 7:30 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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
/M.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654