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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 3, 2026 has been entered.
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, 3, 6-7, 9, 11, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3301051 A1 (Studer) in view of US 10526168 B2 (LItteral et al.) and further in view of US 20220024716 A1 (Hosemann et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Studer teaches:
An elevator system (10) comprising:
at least one light (28) arranged in an elevator shaft (12); and
a light switch (36) and at least one remotely operated switch (34) associated with the at least one light and configured to operate a state of the at least one light, the remotely operated switch configured to remotely control the state of the light switch; and
a controller (16) configured to control the remotely operated 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…” paragraph [0036], lines 3-5 of the previously provided machine translation),
wherein the at least one light is configured to be remotely controllable (34 is remotely controllable by controller 16).
Studer is silent to a remote node external to the elevator system and the corresponding communication between the controller and the remote node.
However, Litteral et al. teach:
An elevator system with at least one light (46) and a light switch (44), and a controller (34B), the controller is configured to detect the state of the light switch (“The service alarm device 32B includes the controller 34B in communication with the alarming device 36B, and an alarm switching device 44 in communication with the control board 34B. The alarm switching device 44 is configured to transmit a fifth safety signal. In this embodiment, the fifth safety signal is indicative of whether the service light 46 has been turned on.” Col. 5, lines 45-51), and
to transmit the state of the light switch to a remote node (36B), and
wherein the controller is configured to transmit the state of the light switch to the remote node, 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 and a preset time has passed after the operation mode change (“The controller 34B is configured to transmit at least one alarm signal to the alarming device 36B if the fifth safety signal is active and the sixth safety signal is inactive. In some embodiments, the elevator drive 20 is configured to transmit the at least one alarm signal to the alarming device 36B if the fifth safety signal is active and the sixth safety signal is inactive. For example, when the elevator mechanic is on top of the elevator car 14 and activates the service light 46 via the light switch 44; the alarming device 36B is activated. If the inspection stop switch 48 is not enabled within a pre-determined amount of time (e.g. 5 seconds) the control board 34B activates the alarming device 36B to produce a visual and/or audible warning to the elevator mechanic that the inspection stop switch 48 has not been enabled.” Col. 6, lines 3-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect a remote node to the controller of Studer, as taught by Litteral et al., that alerts a maintenance worker when a shaft light is on and other safety conditions have not been met in order to ensure the safety of the worker in the shaft. Both Studer and Litteral et al. teach elevator control systems capable of controlling a light in the elevator shaft. Litteral et al. teach a multi-layer security control system that signals to a worker in the shaft that an inspection stop switch has not been activated when the light has been activated for over five seconds. This control process adds a layer of safety for the worker.
Studer and Litteral et al. do not teach that the remote node is a node external to the elevator system.
However, Hosemann et al. teach:
An elevator system with at least one light (4a) in a shaft (5) and a remotely operated light switch (4), and
a controller (1) that communicates with a remote node (gateway interface 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the control system of Studer and Litteral et al. to a remote node external of the elevator system, as taught by Hosemann et al., to allow control of the elevator safety systems by an operator in an associated elevator system or in a remote location. The two elevator systems 2 of Hosemann et al. are “combined by a gateway interface 24 to build a network (e.g. LAN: Local Area Network) and/or to gain an access to a public network 21 (e.g. internet or cloud).” Paragraph [0030] of Hosemann et al., lines 4-7. This allows for a worker in one elevator system to use components from one elevator system when the other is shut off. “In the bus system 22 there is a switch arrangement 16 (e.g. one or more relays) to switch the first assembly A1 connecting in the bus system 22 within this elevator 2 or in another bus system 22 of another elevator. The special advantage of such a switching possibility is that a maintenance working for this elevator group 2a may be very convenient and practical, since during shutting-off of one control system 1 another one can be used temporally for more than one elevator 2 at the same time, including for the elevator 2 comprising this shut-off control system 1.” Paragraph [0032], lines 11-20.
Regarding claim 3, Studer further teaches:
wherein the light switch (36) and the at least one remotely operated switch (34) are arranged in series (figure 2) 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 6, Hosemann et al. further teach:
An elevator system with at least one light (4a) in a shaft (5) and a remotely operated light switch (4), and
wherein the at least one remotely operated switch (4) is connected to an elevator communication network of the elevator system (including interfaces 17a, 17b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the controller of the elevator system of Studer and Litteral et al. into an elevator communication network such as the network taught by Hosemann et al. to integrate the control components while maintaining separate internal and external assemblies to reduce failures and overall costs of the control system. Paragraph [0005] of Hosemann et al., lines 1-8, “the invention of the present patent application aims to provide an elevator control system whose components will be separated and disposed as much as possible and at the same time whose functions at least will be kept as much as possible, in order to increase the degree of integration of the components assembly while reducing the incidence of failures and the total costs of the control system.”
Regarding claim 7, Hosemann et al. further teach:
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 9, Studer further teaches:
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 (34) so that the light switch has a control over the at least one light (28).
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 14, Hosemann et al. further 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 of the system of Studer and Litteral et al. to receive an instruction from the alarming device 36B 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.
Regarding claim 16, Studer further teaches:
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 teaches:
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 teaches:
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 19, Hosemann et al. further teach:
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the light switch of Studer and Litteral et al. on a fixed panel as taught by Hosemann et al. so the physical switch is in a known location for maintenance workers to access.
Regarding claim 20, Studer further teaches:
wherein the controller comprises an elevator controller or an elevator group controller (16 is an “elevator control device”).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3301051 A1 (Studer) in view of US 10526168 B2 (LItteral et al.) in view of US 20220024716 A1 (Hosemann et al.), as applied to claim 3, and further in view of US 20140166447 A1 (Thea et al., Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 4, Studer, Litteral et al., and Hosemann et al. teach:
The elevator system of claim 3.
Studer, Litteral et al., and Hosemann et al. do 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, Litteral et al., and Hosemann et al. teach:
The elevator system of claim 3.
Studer, Litteral et al., and Hosemann et al. do 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 6 of the Remarks that the remote node 36B of Litteral et al. is an internal node of the elevator system and does not meet the limitation in independent claim 1 that the remote node is “a node external to the elevator system”. Hosemann et al. teach an elevator system with a controller that communicates with a remote node that is external to the elevator system as noted in the rejection above. The Examiner agrees that cancellation of claims 12 and 13 resolves the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(d) noted in the Final Rejection of April 30, 2026.
Conclusion
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at (571)272-2097. 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
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights