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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashinaka, US PGPub 2007/0170010 in view of Minato, S60-038852 (see attached machine translation for interpretation).
PNG
media_image1.png
228
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Higashinaka discloses an elevator (see fig 1) comprising: a car (3) having a car room (space in hoistway 1 occupied by car and connected components – see fig 1); a guide rail (2) configured to guide a movement of the car (3); a lower frame (61) provided on a lower portion (see fig 2) of the car room (as described above); and an emergency stop apparatus (33) configured to stop the movement of the car (3), wherein the emergency stop apparatus (33) includes a brake mechanism having a braking element (74,77) configured to clamp the guide rail (2), a drive mechanism (66,67,70) configured to operate the brake mechanism (74,77), and an operation mechanism (79) configured to actuate the drive mechanism (66,67,70), and the drive mechanism (66,67,70) and the operation mechanism (70) are accommodated in the lower frame (61). Higashinaka does not disclose the first and second lower frames in the specified manner.
PNG
media_image2.png
332
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Minato teaches a similar elevator braking mechanism (see fig 1) wherein the lower frame has a first lower frame (5) and a second lower frame (4), the first lower frame (5) extends along a front-rear direction (left to right in fig 6) orthogonal to an upper-lower direction (top to bottom in fig 6) and orthogonal to a width direction (left to right in fig 4) , and two of the first lower frame (5) are provided at an interval (see fig 4) in the width direction (as described above), the second lower frame (4) is provided at a lower end portion (see fig 1) of the first lower frame (5) in the upper-lower direction (as described above), along the width direction (as described above), and the drive mechanism and the operation mechanism (see fig 1) are accommodated in the second lower frame (4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second lower frames described by Minato to the system disclosed by Higashinaka in order to isolate vibrations from the brake to the cabin and allow for smoother ride.
Regarding claim 2, Higashinaka in view of Minato discloses the elevator according to claim 1, wherein two of the second lower frame (see fig 6 – Minato) are provided at an interval in a front-rear direction (as described above - Minato) orthogonal to an upper-lower direction (as described above - Minato) and orthogonal to a width direction (as described above) in which the lower frame (4 - Minato) extends, and the drive mechanism (66,67,70) and the operation mechanism (79) are accommodated between the two second lower frames (4 - Minato).
Regarding claim 3, Higashinaka in view of Minato discloses the elevator according to claim 1, wherein the first lower frame (5 - Minato) is formed in a U-shape (see fig 4 - Minato), and a vibration preventing member (6 - Minato) is interposed between the first lower frame (5 - Minato) and the car room (bottom of 7 - Minato).
Regarding claim 4, Higashinaka in view of Minato discloses the elevator according to claim 1, a cover bracket (bottom of 3 – see hatched line in fig 4) that covers the drive mechanism (66,67,70) and the operation mechanism (79) from above in the upper-lower direction (as described above) is fixed to the second lower frame (4 – Minato).
Regarding claim 5, Higashinaka in view of Minato discloses the elevator according to claim 4, wherein a placement bracket (connected to the four bolt holes shown in fig 4) on which the operation mechanism (79) is placed is fixed to the second lower frame (4 – Minato)) wherein the placement bracket (as described above) is provided to be movable (see fig 4 vs fig 10) in an upper-lower direction (top to bottom in fig 4) with respect to the second lower frame (4 - Minato).
Regarding claim 6, Higashinaka in view of Minato discloses the elevator according to claim 1, wherein an opening window (see central opening in fig 6 - Minato) facing the operation mechanism (79) is formed in the second lower frame (4 – Minato).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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.
MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654