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 § 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) 10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Atkey, US Patent 3,948,358.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Atkey discloses an elevator system (“elevator installation”) having a vertical elevator shaft (col. 2, line 39), in which elevator shaft (as described above) an elevator car (“cab”) is moveable up and down along guide rails (36,38) between floors (see fig 2), wherein the guide rails (36,38) are connected to the elevator shaft (as described above) at a door-side shaft wall (see connection between 18 and 62 in fig 2) of the elevator shaft (as described above), the elevator system (as described above) comprising: a mounting structure (10) adapted to fasten at least one of the guide rails (36,38) at the door-side shaft wall (via 28); the mounting structure (10) including a floor fixing portion (28) adapted to be fixed to a horizontal surface (top surface of 62) of a floor landing (see fig 2) of one of the floors; wherein the mounting structure (10) has a first rail fastening portion (30,32,34 on side of guide rails closer to 28 in fig 1) adapted to fasten to the at least one guide rail (36,38); and wherein the mounting structure (10) has a second rail fastening portion (30,32,34 on side of guide rails further to 28 in fig 1), adjoining the first rail fastening portion (as described above), adapted to fasten to the at least one guide rail (36,36).
Regarding claim 16, Atkey discloses the elevator system according to Claim 10 wherein the mounting structure (10) is formed as a U-shaped installation bracket (see fig 1), the installation bracket including two side members (14,16) and a crossmember (12) extending between and connected to the side members (14,16), wherein each of the side members (14,16) projects away from the crossmember (12) at a right angle (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 17, Atkey discloses the elevator system according to Claim 10 wherein the mounting structure (10) includes a coupling part (sidewalls of 24,26 containing holes for bolts 34) that extends along the first rail fastening portion (as described above) and the second rail fastening portion (as described above) and connects (see fig 1) the first rail fastening portion (as described above) to the second rail fastening portion (as described above).
Regarding claim 18, Atkey discloses the elevator system according to Claim 17 wherein the coupling part (as described above) includes a T-shaped engagement member (32,30 form T) adapted be inserted into an elongated hole (hole with passes through 24 and 26 and accepts 32) formed in the second rail fastening portion (as described above) to connect the coupling part (as described above) to the second rail fastening portion (as described above).
Regarding claim 19, Atkey discloses the elevator system according to Claim 18 wherein the first fastening portion (as described above) has at least one mounting hole (hole accepting 32) formed therein adapted to receive a fastening screw (32) to fasten to the at least one guide rail (36,38).
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) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkey in view of Xiong, US PGPub 2020/0115190.
Regarding claim 11, Atkey discloses the elevator system according to Claim 10 wherein the mounting structure (10) includes at least one projecting side (14,16) member having a horizontal web portion (24,26). Atkey does not specify that the first rail fastening portion being arranged below the horizontal web portion and the second rail fastening portion being arranged above the horizontal web portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
712
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Xiong teaches similar guide rail mounting structure (see fig 5b) includes at least one projecting side member (506) having a horizontal web portion (see 506 in fig 5b), the first rail fastening portion (508b) being arranged below (see fig 5b) the horizontal web portion (506) and the second rail fastening portion (508a) being arranged above the horizontal web portion (506). 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 vertically aligned rail fastening portions as described by Xiong in the system disclosed by Atkey, in order to readily connect to rail junctions and provide improved rotational resistance.
Regarding claim 12, Atkey in view of Xiong discloses the elevator system according to Claim 11 the second rail fastening (508a) portion is formed as a separate attachment part (via 524) that is attached to the at least one side member (506). Atkey in view of Xiong does not specify that at least one side member (14,16) with the horizontal web portion (24,26) and the first rail fastening portion are formed as a common component. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to make 508b and 506 integral since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to construct an integral structure in order to simplify the construction and improve the rigidity of the holding structure.
Regarding claim 13, Atkey in view of Xiong discloses the elevator system according to Claim 12 wherein the common component (i.e. 506 and 508b when constructed integrally) is formed as a rigid bent part made of a sheet metal (as apparent by curved bending structure in fig 5b).
Regarding claim 14, Atkey in view of Xiong discloses the elevator system according to Claim 11 wherein the at least one side member (14,16) has a vertical web portion (see upper and lower web portions projecting away from 36 and 38 in fig 1) adjoining and connected to the horizontal web portion (24,26) by a folded edge (see fig 1-2).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkey in view of Korhonen, US Patent 5,520,264.
Regarding claim 15, Atkey discloses the elevator system according to Claim 10 but does not specify an elongated mounting hole.
PNG
media_image3.png
350
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Korhonen teaches a similar guide rail fixing structure (see fig 1) wherein at least one elongated mounting hole (8) is arranged in the second rail fastening portion (connected with 11). 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 elongated fastening holes described by Korhonen to the system disclose by Atkey in order to easily allow for horizontal position adjustment of the guide rails to ensure proper alignment and modify the support structure for varied elevator configurations.
Claim(s) 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkey in view of Dapice et al., EP20166706.
Regarding claim 20, Atkey discloses the elevator system according to Claim 10 but does not specify that the rail has a hollow profile.
PNG
media_image4.png
452
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Dapice et al. teaches a similar guide rail support structure wherein the at least guide rail (112) has a hollow profile (114 – see abstract) and the guide rail, or a docking structure associated with the at least one guide rail, has a plurality of receptacles (204) each adapted to receive a fastening screw (200). 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 hollow rail profiles described by Dapice et al. to the system disclosed by Atkey in order to reduce the weight and material associated with the guide rail structure to reduce assembly costs.
Regarding claim 21, Atkey in view of Dapice et al. disclose the elevator system according to Claim 20. The limitation “wherein the hollow profile is formed as a rolled profile” is a product by process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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