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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figures 4 and 5 show(s) modified forms of construction in the same view. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “that it comprises” should be deleted and replaced with: --comprising--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Below is a sampling of the 112 errors, not intended to be comprehensive. A complete revision of the claims is necessary.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the safety gear" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 1, line 3, the limitation “in which there are” is vague and indefinite. What is the relationship between the protective plate and the fixed drive means? Are the two components attached rigidly? What structure is being claimed?
In claim 1, line 5, the limitation “these mobile wedging means” is vague and indefinite. Are multiple wedging means, as indicated by “these”, being claimed here? Only a single wedging means is shown in species 1. What structure is being claimed?
In claim 1, line 11, the limitation “comprise based on” is vague and indefinite. Is this a typo? Does this mean “comprises”? What structure is being claimed?
In claim 2, line 1, the limitation “The electromechanical activation system” is vague and indefinite. Should claim 2 depend on claim 1? This would explain the abundance of antecedent basis issues. If claim 2 is intended to be independent as written, “The” should be replaced with “A”. What structure is being claimed?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the safety gear" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the fixed protective plate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the reset coil" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the holding coil" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "its power supply" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What does “its” refer to here? What structure is being claimed?
What is the relationship between “the drive spring” introduced in claim 2, line 8 and the “activation spring” introduced in claim 2, line 6? What structure is being claimed?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the mobile wedging means" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the vertical segment" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the wedging roller" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 2, line 21, the limitation “it” is vague and indefinite. What does “it” refer to? Does it refer to the wedging roller? What structure is being claimed?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "guiding means" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Should claim 3 depend on claim 2 and claim 1? This would explain the abundance of antecedent basis issues.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the guiding means" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the vertical movement" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the mobile protective plate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 4, line 4 the limitation “configuration comparable to a trapezoid” is vague and indefinite. What geometries are considered comparable to a trapezoid? What structure is being claimed?
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso et al., EP 3929132 in view of Hallikainen et al., US PGPub 2020/0198936.
PNG
media_image1.png
634
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Alonso et al. discloses an electromechanical activation system for the safety gear of an elevator (see fig 1-4E), that it comprises: a fixed protective plate (10) in which there are fixed drive means (14,16); mobile wedging means (20,30) activated by the drive means (14,16), and wherein these mobile wedging means (20,30) are arranged in parallel (see fig 1) with respect to the drive means (14,16); one wedging roller (13) for a one-way safety gear system (see fig 1-4E) characterized in that the drive means (14,16) fixed in the fixed protective plate (10) comprise a holding coil (16) and release means (14) arranged in alignment. Alonso et al. does not specify a reset coil.
PNG
media_image2.png
438
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hallikainen et al. teaches a similar elevator braking system (see fig 5) with a release (130) and a resetting coil (140). 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 resetting coil described by Hallikainen et al. in the system disclosed by Alonso et al. in order to facilitate releasing the brake from a static elevator position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Assuming claim 2 is rewritten so as to depend on claim 1, claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Likewise assuming claim 3 is rewritten so as to depend on claim2, claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 is patentable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not show or render obvious the combination set forth in claims 2, including every structural element recited in the claims, especially, the configuration wherein the fixed protective plate (10) is provided with a double bend defining an upper part and a lower part, such that the reset coil (1) and the holding coil (2) are fixed in the upper part arranged in alignment and separated from one another, with an activation spring (8) being arranged on the holding coil (2), such that when the holding coil (2) is released from its power supply, the drive spring moves vertically; the mobile wedging means consist of a mobile protective plate (13) placed in a parallel arrangement with respect to the lower part of the fixed protective plate (10), wherein said mobile protective plate (13) has an upper bend which defines a horizontal surface (19), this horizontal surface being housed between the space defined by the reset coil and the holding coil, whereas the vertical segment has an elongated hole (16);- the wedging roller (6) is arranged in the lower part of the fixed protective plate (10), wherein said wedging roller has a guiding shaft (17) emerging through a guiding groove made in the fixed protective plate; it furthermore has guiding means of the mobile protective plate (13) with respect to the fixed protective plate (10) for the vertical movement of the mobile protective plate with respect to the fixed protective plate.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the braking system as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the system in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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
Prosecution Insights