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 .
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATO WO2020090858A1.
Regarding claim 1, SATO discloses
An elevator device (figs, 1 and 17) comprising a car (item 300), a hoisting machine (item 700), and a control panel (item 100) that controls operation, wherein the control panel has a regenerative resistance panel part (item 7), a main circuit panel part (item 2), a power receiving panel part (item 1), a signal panel part (item 4), and a battery panel part (item 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
939
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
194
878
media_image2.png
Greyscale
WO does not explicitly say “the main circuit panel part and the power receiving panel part are arranged in parallel in a horizontal direction” and “and the regenerative resistance panel part, the main circuit panel part and power receiving panel part, the signal panel part, and the battery panel part are arranged in an order of, from top to bottom, the regenerative resistance panel part, the main circuit panel part and power receiving panel part, the signal panel part, and the battery panel part”. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange items 1 and 2 in parallel in a horizontal direction and arrange items 7, 2, 1, 4 and 3 from top to bottom in WO’s teachings to improve workability because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of MAKINO. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) for rearrangement of parts.
Regarding claim 2, SATO discloses
, wherein the regenerative resistance panel part, the main circuit panel part, the signal panel part, and the battery panel part are arranged in series (see fig. 17 for detail).
Regarding claim 3, SATO discloses
, wherein the power receiving panel part is disposed in such a manner as to protrude horizontally from a row of the regenerative resistance panel part, main circuit panel part, signal panel part, and battery panel part arranged in series. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to protrude horizontally from a row of the regenerative resistance panel part, main circuit panel part, signal panel part, and battery panel part arranged in series in WO’s teachings to improve workability because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of MAKINO. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) for rearrangement of parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 4 discloses details of individual panels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Swaybill (US 6,478,117 B2) discloses a controller and a governor positioned in the hoistway.
YAO (EP 1930278 A1) discloses a control board for elevator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights