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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on April 25, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 22000108.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2358625 B1 (Geyer) in view of US 20200217087 A1 (Greschbach).
Regarding claim 1, Geyer teaches:
An elevator comprising a car (200), an inner frame (220, 127, 204) and an outer frame (102), wherein the outer frame encloses an elevator shaft and comprises a base (bottom of figure 3), a first lateral surface (109, figure 5), a second lateral surface (115) lying opposite the first lateral surface, a third lateral surface (113), and a fourth lateral surface (111) lying opposite the third lateral surface, wherein the inner frame comprises at least one first guide post (first guide rail 220) and a second guide post (second guide rail 220) lying opposite the first guide post, wherein the inner frame supports the weight of the car (the car is supported by guide rails 220 and pulleys 206, all supported by posts 129), and wherein the first guide post and the second guide post are arranged diagonally opposite each other (lower left and upper right corner regions 105, figure 5) at the edge of the base plate, over which the outer frame is erected.
Geyer is silent to the base of the outer frame being a plate.
However, Greschbach teaches:
An elevator with an outer frame and guide posts, and
wherein the outer frame encloses an elevator shaft and comprises a base plate (20).
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 base plate as the base/floor of Geyer, as taught by Greschbach, to completely contain the prefabricated shaft. Both Geyer and Greschbach teach prefabricated elevator shafts to be installed at or in buildings. The base plate of Greschbach encloses the bottom of the shaft such that it contains any components that may come loose during transport.
Regarding claim 2, Geyer further teaches:
wherein the lateral surfaces are arranged on a rectangle (the sides 109, 111, 113, 115 are rectangular).
Regarding claim 3, Geyer further teaches:
wherein the inner frame also carries the drive unit (126).
Regarding claim 4, Geyer further teaches:
wherein the inner frame also carries two drive rollers (206).
Regarding claim 5, Geyer further teaches:
wherein the first guide post (220) is connected to the outer frame (post 129, figure 7) by at least one spacer element (spacer element, annotated figure 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
415
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of Geyer, annotated by the Examiner
Regarding claim 6, Geyer further teaches:
wherein the spacer element is configured to bridge a length of at least 2 cm.
Geyer does not explicitly state the length of the spacer element; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the spacer element to bridge a length of at least 2 cm. The spacer element is shown having fasteners connecting the corner post to the guide rail. A distance less than 2 cm would not support the fasteners with sufficient material to maintain structural integrity.
Regarding claim 7, Geyer further teaches:
wherein the first guide post (220) and the second guide post (220) are connected by a cross strut (the guide rails 220 are connected by cross member 127 through respective shafts 204).
Regarding claim 8, Geyer further teaches:
wherein a drive shaft (125) is provided parallel to the cross strut (127).
Regarding claim 9, Geyer further teaches:
wherein at least the first guide post (220) consists substantially of a T-beam (“As guide rails steel rails in the form of T-profiles are used.” Page 1 of the attached machine translation, paragraph 3, lines 3-4).
While it is unclear from the drawings if the guides of Geyer consist substantially of T-beams, Geyer teaches using guides in the form of T-profiles in elevator systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use T-profile type guide rails for the well-known benefits of strength and availability.
Regarding claim 10, Geyer further teaches:
wherein at least the first guide post (220) is substantially made of steel (“The guide rail 220 may be formed of steel.” Page 7, paragraph 12, line 2 of the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, Geyer further teaches:
wherein the outer frame is substantially made of aluminum (“The posts 129 and the transverse strut or the latch 201 may be made of an extruded aluminum hollow profile.” Page 7, paragraph 12, lines 1-2 of the attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, Geyer further teaches:
wherein the outer frame comprises four corner posts (129).
Regarding claim 13, Geyer further teaches:
wherein at least one corner post of the four corner posts has lateral surfaces (left and bottom walls 205, figure 6) arranged around a rectangular cross-section and a groove (232) arranged at a 45-degree angle to the lateral surfaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 2 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the outer frame of D1 is comprised of four vertical posts 129 and nine cross bars 201 and that the posts define six rectangular openings and submits that an ordinary artisan would regard such a shaft as “unenclosed”. Per the footnotes of the Remarks, Applicant points to US 20200217087 (Greschbach) as D1, the Examiner believes this to be in error and D1 is intended to be EP 2358625 (Geyer) that is the primary reference in the Non-Final Rejection of October 1, 2025. Under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification the outer frame of Geyer comprising vertical and lateral bars encloses the elevator shaft. Figure 1 of Applicant’s invention clearly shows the outer frame having “access openings” 22, 24, and 26. Further, general definitions of the term “enclose” when used as a verb include “to surround”. The outer frame of Geyer surrounds the elevator shaft. Between the combination of the invention itself having access openings in the outer frame and the general definition of the word “enclose” the invention of Geyer meets the limitation of “the outer frame encloses an elevator shaft” from claim 1, line 2. Regardless, in the non-final rejection dated October 1, 2025, the Examiner interprets walls of the outer frame (109, 111, 113, and 115) as components of the outer frame that encloses the elevator shaft.
Regarding the argument on page 3, under section 2, that Applicant’s elevator shaft spans multiple floors and the outer frame of Geyer only spans one floor, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1 does not further narrow the limitation “an elevator shaft”. The elevator shaft of Geyer meets all of the limitations as required by claim 1.
Regarding the argument on pages 3-4, under section 3, that the “base” identified in Geyer may be construed as load-bearing device 200, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. 200 is the floor of the car of Geyer. Rather, the Examiner generally refers to the bottom of the outer frame as the base and concedes that Geyer does not clearly disclose a base plate as claimed. The Examiner relies upon Greschbach in the non-final rejection to teach the claimed base plate.
Regarding the argument on page 4, under the first section 4, that the guide posts 220 are not shown arranged diagonally to each other, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to examine figures 3 and 5 to determine that the guide posts 220 that are aligned with pulleys 206 as shown in figure 3 are found aligned beneath the pulleys 206, shown diagonally arranged from each other in figure 5.
Regarding the argument on pages 4-5, under second section 4, that each floor of Geyer would have a base plate attached and as a result a passenger entering the car at floor 104 in an attempt to go to floor 106 would be stopped by a base plate at the base of upper frame 102, one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably combine Geyer and Greschbach in a manner that would place base plates at the bottom of each floor, rendering the elevator unfunctional.
Regarding the argument on pages 5-6, under section 5, that rationale for combining Geyer and Greshbach relies on information from Applicant’s specification that was not publicly disclosed by the invention’s priority date, the Applicant’s specification does not provide any motivation for enclosing the shaft with a base plate. While Geyer is silent to the transport process of the prefabricated shaft, Greschbach shows the transport process in figures 4-5. In the combination of Geyer and Greschbach having a prefabricated shaft that is transported in the manner taught by Greschbach where the shaft is horizontal on a truck and lifted into a vertical position, the base plate would contain components (for example, fasteners) that may have come loose during transport, as noted in the non-final rejection.
Regarding the argument on pages 6-7, under section 6, that Geyer does not teach the inner frame supporting the weight of the car, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not require that the inner frame supports the entire weight of the elevator car. In fact, Applicant’s Specification, page 4, lines 14-16, states, “In the context of the present invention, it may be possible for the outer frame to also bear part of the weight of the car, for example 10% or a maximum of 20% of the weight.” Broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “characterized in that the inner frame supports the weight of the car” in lines 8-9 of claim 1 when taken in light of the specification requires that at least some of the weight of the car is supported by the inner frame. The pulleys 206, supported by 204, support the suspension element (i.e. belt or rope) and clearly bear some of the weight of the car. The guide elements 220 are also connected to the car by guides 222 (figure 3), also bearing or supporting some of the weight of the car.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights