DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 10-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peacock et al. (U.S. 9,809,424) in view of Aime (U.S. 5,085,293).
In re Claim 10, Peacock teaches an elevator platform with a water-proof roof (43). This roof has a waterproof membrane (45) that is shown to close the gap between the walls shown in cross section and the roofing platform. For this to be a roof that is completely waterproof, that membrane would obviously need to close the gap between the platform and all of the shaft walls in order to keep the elevator shaft free of water. (Figures 1-5)
Peacock does not teach that the seal is pneumatically activated.
Aime teaches a pneumatically activated seal (7,8,9,10,11) adapted to seal or close a gap between a platform (4) and walls of the elevator shaft (6) when the platform is installed in the elevator shaft and the seal is in an active position; and wherein the seal is a circumferential seal attached to the platform. The seal is attached around the perimeter of the shaft wall opening and is therefore circumferential. (Figures 1-8)
The language directed to the elevator shaft becoming taller as a height of the building increases is part of the preamble is not a positively claimed limitation. Therefore, it is not afforded patentable weight.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the platform taught by Peacock with the pneumatic seal structure disclosed by Aime. Having a pneumatic seal closing the gaps with all shaft walls allows for greater flexibility in moving the platform when the waterproofing seal is not required.
In re Claim 11, Aime teaches a compressed air source (16,17) arranged at the platform and connected to operate the seal between a rest position and the active position. (Figures 1-8, Column 1, Lines 51-63)
In re Claim 12, Peacock modified by Aime has been previously discussed. Figure 1 shows a seal (7,8,9,10,11) in a rectangular arrangement around the elevator opening. Figures 4 and 5 shows a cross sectional view of the seal 7 with rounder regions in what could be considered corners. However, should the applicant dispute this, it has been held that changes in shape involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the seal with rounded corner regions. Rounded corner regions provide a gradual transition at a location where the geometry can change directions. This reduces stress concentrations.
In re Claim 13-14, Peacock modified by Aime has been previously discussed but does not teach corner regions with a radius of at least 5 cm or at least 10 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art made to have corner regions with radius in this range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Radius of this size will assure the size of the seal is adequate to provide a strong seal between the elevator and the shaft wall.
In re Claim 16, Aime teaches platform with a fastening strip (14) with a groove that accommodates the support body (12) of the seal. (Figures 1-8)
In re Claim 17, Peacock teaches an elevator platform with a seal (45) at the upper side of the platform. Aime teaches seal (7) has sections (9,11,10) that extend onto an underside/lower part or and sections (9,11,8) that extend to and upper side of the platform. (Figure 1,2)
In re Claim 18, Aime teaches a platform according to Claim 10; and when the platform (4) is installed in the elevator shaft (6) and the seal (7) is activated, the seal seals or closes a gap between the platform and walls of the elevator shaft. (Figures 1-8)
In re Claim 19, Peacock teaches installing an elevator platform with a water-proof roof (43). This roof has a waterproof membrane (45) that is shown to close the gap between the walls shown in cross section and the roofing platform. For this to be a roof that is completely water proofing, that membrane would obviously need to close the gap between the platform and all of the shaft walls in order to keep the elevator shaft free of water. (Figures 1-5)
Peacock does not teach that the seal is pneumatically activated that moves from a rest position into the active position.
Aime teaches installing a platform (4) according to Claim 10 in the elevator shaft with the seal in the rest position; activating the seal(7) from the rest position into the active position during the building phase to seal or close a gap between the platform (4)and walls(6) of the elevator shaft; returning the seal to the rest position for lifting the platform in the elevator shaft during which lifting the seal is spaced apart from the walls of the elevator shaft; and returning the seal to the active position after the lifting of the platform is complete. The seal returns to the rest position so that the car can move without damaging the seal. The Seal deploys to the active position where it seals that gap between the platform/car and the elevator shaft wall. These steps repeat whenever the car/platform moves or strops. (Figures 1-8;Abstract, Column 1, Lines 48-68, Column 2,lines 1-11; Claim 1, 8,13,18)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-23 are allowed.
The prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a platform for an elevator system with the combination of characteristics found in the claims. Of particular note are the wedges attached to or integrally formed onto the seal in the corner regions. There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant's invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/15/2026 with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view the amended claim language requiring a new ground(s) of rejection based on the Peacock Reference.
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 ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights