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Claims 33-34 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/21/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17, 19-20, 23-26, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bissig et al., US PGPub 2008/0081721.
PNG
media_image1.png
208
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Bissig et al. discloses a belt (11) for carrying an elevator car and/or a counterweight of an elevator system (see [0013]), the belt (11) comprising: a belt body (12) having a traction side (16) adapted to contact a traction sheave (drive pulley) of the elevator system (see [0037]) and a back side (13) opposite the traction side (16), wherein the belt body (12) has on the traction side (16) a groove profile (14,15) adapted to an outer contour of the traction sheave (see [0037]) and a profile on the back side (flat back side - see fig 4) deviating from the groove profile (14,15); and a plurality of tension members (1) embedded in the belt body (12) for transmitting tensile forces, wherein each of the tension members (1) is formed by multiple strands twisted together (4-5, 7-9), and each of the strands (4-5, 7-9( is formed by multiple metallic or non-metallic fibers twisted together (see [0039]).
Regarding claim 19, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 17 wherein the belt body (12) is flat (see fig 4) on the back side (13).
Regarding claim 20, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 17 wherein the strands of each of the tension members (1) include a central strand (5) surrounded by multiple outer strands (7-10).
Regarding claim 23, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 17 wherein the tension members (1) include at least one first tension member (Z in figure 2) and at least one second tension member (S in figure 2) that differ in a direction of lay (see [0037]).
Regarding claim 24, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 23 wherein a plurality of the at least one first tension member (as described above) and a plurality of the at least one second tension member (as described above) are arranged distributed over a width (left to right in fig 2) of the belt body (12), wherein at least one of the second tension members (as described above) is arranged between (see fig 2) two adjacent ones of the first tension members (as described above).
Regarding claim 25, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 17 wherein at least four (see fig 4) of the tension members (1) are embedded in the belt body (12).
Regarding claim 26, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 17 wherein an even number (6 in fig 4) of the tension members (1) is embedded in the belt body (12).
Regarding claim 32, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 17 wherein a diameter (see fig 4) of each of the tension members (1) corresponds to at least 70% of a total height (distance between 16 and 13) of the belt (11).
Regarding claim 35, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 17, incorporated into an elevator system (see [0013]) with a traction sheave (drive pulley) in an elevator shaft; an elevator car (see [0013]) movable in the elevator shaft, the belt (11) carrying the elevator car (as described above).
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) 21-22, 29 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissig et al.
Regarding claim 21, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 17 with varied strand diameters, but does not specify that a ratio of a diameter of a thinnest of the strands to a diameter of a thickest of the strands is at least 0.8. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the strand thinkness in the specified manner since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to employ the specified strand thicknesses in order to optimize the strength and bending properties of the belt for a specific elevator application.
Regarding claim 22, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 17 but does not specify a ratio of a breaking load of the belt to a width of the belt is between 5.2 kN/mm and 5.4 kN/mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to construct a system with the specified breaking load 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. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated construct a system with the specified breaking load range in order to optimize the belt strength, weight and flexibility for a specific elevator application.
Regarding claim 29, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 17 but does not specify that at least one steel tension member is made of steel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ steel tension members, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to employ steel tension members in order to improve the belt strength and employ a widely used and cost effective solution.
Regarding claim 36, Bissig et al. discloses the elevator system according to Claim 35 but does not specify that the traction sheave has a diameter that is greater by a factor of 80 to 120 than a diameter of a thickest one of the strands of the belt. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to employ the specified sized sheave and strands 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. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated employ the specified sized sheave and strands in order to optimize the belt strength and size of the traction sheave for a specific elevator application.
Claim(s) 18 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bissig et al. in view of Goser et al., WO2020/104089
Regarding claims 18, 30-31, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 17 but does not specify that a profile height of the groove profile corresponds to at least half of a total height of the belt or that the sheathing is fire retardant.
PNG
media_image2.png
152
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Goser et al. teaches a similar elevator belt (see fig 1, 4) a profile height of the groove profile (see fig 1,4) corresponds to at least half of a total height (from 10a-10b)of the belt (10). (claim 18)
wherein each of the tension members (16) has a fire-retardant sheathing (see page 1). (claim 30)
wherein the groove profile (see fig 1,4) is formed as multiple elevations (tooth portion below 16) and depressions (between tension member)( and wherein each of the tension members (16) is embedded in an associated one of the elevations (see fig 4) such that a cross-sectional area of each the elevations is at least half of a cross-sectional area of the associated tension member (see fig 1,4). (claim 31).
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 sheathing and profile geometry described by Goser et al. to the system disclosed by Bissig et al. in order to improve the grip properties and abrasion resistance of the belt.
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., US PGPub 2019/0071281
Regarding claim 27, Bissig et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 17 but does not specify wherein the back side (13) has a film made of an electrically conductive material applied thereto.
PNG
media_image3.png
220
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zhao et al. teaches a similar elevator belt (see fig 9) structure including an electrically conductive film (42). 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 conductive film described by Zhao et al. to the system disclosed by Bissig et al. in order to provide lateral stiffness and all for belt condition monitoring.
Regarding claim 28, Bissig et al. in view of Zhao et al. discloses the belt according to Claim 27 but does not specify the electrically conductive material (42) is copper. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ a copper film, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended us as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to employ a copper film in order to improve the durability and electrical properties.
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, Michael Mansen can be reached at (571) 272-6608. 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