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
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) 16-20, 22-25, 27-29, 31, 32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haapaniemi (2013/0293019).
Regarding independent claim 16, and dependent claim 31, 32, Haapaniemi teaches (Figs. 1, 2, 4) a connected energy storage element for powering an electrical subsystem (i.e. lights 5 and/or 6) of an elevator system, the connected energy storage element comprising:
an energy storage element (7) and a communication element (10);
wherein the connected energy storage element is adapted to connect to an external electrical energy feed (8) and to the electrical subsystem (5 and/or 6) of the elevator system;
wherein the communication element is adapted to receive information (via sensors 1 and 19) and/or instructions for controlling whether the electrical subsystem is to be powered by the external electrical energy feed, by the energy storage element or by both the external electrical energy feed and the energy storage element, and for charging of the energy storage element by the external electrical energy feed ([0034]-[0036]); and
wherein an elevator drive (12, 15) of the elevator system is not powerable by the energy storage element, and/or wherein the elevator drive is not connected to the connected energy storage element ([0032], [0033]).
Haapaniemi teaches “the control arrangement (10)…comprises a charging circuit (9)” ([0008]), a sensor to measure the operating condition of the grid ([0035]), and charging the energy storage element via the charging circuit when the grid is operating (end of [0034]), but arguably fails to explicitly teach the control arrangement (10) controlling the charging circuit. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in this art that controllers control charging units to start and stop charging of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller/communication element control charging of the energy storage element (based on the sensor data regarding the operating condition of the grid), since Haapaniemi allegedly was silent as to how the charging unit is controlled and the Examiner takes Official Notice that controllers are known in the art to control charging units.
Regarding claim 17, Haapaniemi teaches the elevator system includes another electrical subsystem (elevator drive and/or others referenced in [0045]) that is adapted to be powered by at least one of the external electrical energy feed and the energy storage element.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Haapaniemi teaches the electrical subsystem is one of an elevator controller, a light subsystem, a communications subsystem, an evacuation subsystem, an emergency communications subsystem, a door control subsystem, a door operations subsystem, a sensor arrangement, an elevator fixture, a landing operation panel, a car operation panel, a safety circuit, a pneumatic element and a pneumatic valve ([0033], [0034], [0045]).
Regarding claims 19 and 32, Haapaniemi teaches being adapted to determine whether the external electrical energy feed is sufficient to operate an elevator drive of the elevator system, wherein when the external electrical energy feed is determined not sufficient to operate the elevator drive, the connected energy storage element inactivates the electrical subsystem, and/or when the external electrical energy feed is determined sufficient to operate the elevator drive, the connected energy storage element activates or keeps activated the electrical subsystem ([0035]).
Regarding claim 22, Haapaniemi teaches the information and/or instructions are indicative of and/or dependent on a current energy cost, a current energy availability, an expected future energy cost, and/or an expected future energy availability ([0035]).
Regarding claims 23 and 35, Haapaniemi teaches the information and/or instructions instruct the connected energy storage element to perform a function at a defined time in the future and/or the connected energy storage element employs the information and/or instructions to perform a function at a defined time in the future ([0036]; info from sensor; if stationary for period of time).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Haapaniemi teaches based on the information and/or instructions, the connected energy storage element adjusts a current power consumption of at least a part of the elevator system by controlling whether the electrical subsystem is powered by the external electrical energy feed or the energy storage element or both, and/or by controlling the charging of the energy storage element by the external electrical energy feed ([0034]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 27, Haapaniemi teaches the external electrical energy feed (8) is at least one of a power grid feed, a single-phase electrical energy feed, a local electrical energy feed and a renewable energy powered energy feed. (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 28, Haapaniemi teaches (Fig. 1) an elevator system comprising:
an elevator car (11) moveable in an elevator shaft (17) by an elevator drive (12, 15);
an electrical subsystem (10 among others) adapted to operate and/or control operation of at least a part of the elevator system; and
a connected energy storage element (7) according to Claim 16 wherein the electrical subsystem is powered by at least one of an external electrical energy feed and the connected energy storage element (as described above in claim 16).
Regarding claim 29, Haapaniemi teaches the elevator drive is not connected to the connected energy storage element and/or wherein the elevator drive (to power it) and the connected energy storage element (to charge it) are connected to the external electrical feed in parallel ([0032]-[0034]).
Claim(s) 21, 26, 30, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haapaniemi (2013/0293019) as applied to claims 16, 28, and 32 above, and further in view of Henneau (2021/0316960). Haapaniemi teaches the connected energy storage element as described above.
Regarding claim 21, Haapaniemi fails to explicitly teach receiving information and/or instructions from an external entity. Henneau teaches a similar connected energy storage element (Fig. 2; Abstract) to that of Haapaniemi. Henneau teaches the idea of the information (from sensors like Haapaniemi’s) and/or instructions being received by the communication element from a crowd balancing platform (“central analysis device”) that are arranged external from the elevator system ([0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a crowd balancing platform that is arranged external from the elevator system to transmit information and/or instructions to a particular elevator system, since it would allow for a more centralized control of a plurality of elevator systems that may be working together in a particular building to operate all of the elevator systems more efficiently ([0034] of Henneau).
Regarding claims 26, 33, and 34, Henneau also teaches the idea of the sensed electrical parameters from the sensors (inside the elevator system) being communicated to the central analysis device external from the elevator system ([0018]-[0020]; i.e. reporting energy consumption to an entity external aka crowd balancing platform).
Regarding claim 30, Haapaniemi teaches the invention as described above with respect to claims 24 and 25, but fails to explicitly teach the elevator system comprising a plurality of elevator systems. Henneau teaches their elevator system can comprise a plurality of elevator systems arranged at a plurality of locally and/or geographically distributed operation locations ([0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Haapaniemi’s system comprising a plurality of elevator systems being arranged at a plurality of locally and/or geographically distributed operation locations, since Henneau teaches this idea and doing so would allow for a transfer of information and power between the systems as necessary to make sure the systems work together as efficiently as possible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 2, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Official Notice that it is known in the art that controllers are known to control charging circuits.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
DMP
2/18/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836