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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the configuration of the at least one first clamp and at least one second clamp that results in the motor pulley applying a force in a second direction on the at least one first rope clamp and a direction opposite the second direction on the at least one second clamp as claimed in claims 19 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 19 and 20 recite the same limitations with differing dependency. Each claim, 19 and 20, recites the limitations, “the at least one first rope clamp is configured to receive and detachably attach to position on the at least one rope at which the motor pulley applies a force in a second direction” and “the at least one second rope clamp is configured to receive and detachably attach to position on the at least one rope at which the motor pulley applies a force in a direction opposite to the second direction.” Figure 2 shows first clamp 4 and second clamp 5 positioned such that if the motor pulley rotates in a clockwise direction, it exerts a vertical force in the upward direction on second clamp 5 and if the motor pulley rotates in a counterclockwise direction, it exerts a vertical force in the upward direction on first clamp 4. The force applied to each of the first and second clamps is in approximately the same direction, not in opposite directions as claimed. Figure 3 shows two second clamps 5 and no first clamps 4, and in the configuration shown a downward force would be applied to each clamp depending on the direction of rotation of the motor pulley, and not a force in opposite directions as claimed.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 3519101 A (Sieffert).
Regarding claim 14, Sieffert discloses:
An elevator arrangement comprising;
an elevator car (44), the elevator car including,
- at least one first rope clamp (47-1) on a first side (left side as shown in figure 1) of a motor pulley (28) with respect to a first direction (left/right, horizontal direction), and
- at least one second rope clamp (84) on a second side (right side as shown in figure 1, clamp 84 shown in figure 3 on the right side of sheave 45) of the motor pulley with respect to the first direction, the second side being different from the first side,
- the at least one first rope clamp and the at least one second rope clamp being configured to receive and detachably attach at least one rope (ropes 46) of an elevator roping, and the at least one first rope clamp and the at least one second rope clamp being on a roof of the elevator car, or attached to a frame of the elevator car (47-1 and 84 are attached to crosshead 48, part of the frame on the roof of car 44).
Regarding claim 16, Sieffert further discloses:
wherein the elevator car includes car pulleys (reels 49) to which the at least one rope is configured to be installed.
Regarding claim 18, Sieffert further discloses:
wherein the at least one first rope clamp (47-1) is configured to attach the at least one rope contemporaneous with the at least one second rope clamp (84) detatching the at least one rope (“Next, the two sheave cable clamps 83 and 84 (FIG. 3) are removed. The remaining three wire rope clamps 47-1, 47-2 and 47-3 are loosened, but not removed.” Col. 7, lines 60-63); and
the at least one second rope clamp is configured to attach the at least one rope contemporaneous with the at least one first rope clamp detatching the at least one rope (“With the slack removed, the three wire rope clamps 47-1, 47-2, and 47-3 are tightened. The two sheave cable clamps 83 and 84 are replaced and tightened.” Col.8, lines 3-5, both the first clamp 47-1 and second clamp 84 attach and detach the at least one rope within the same time frame, i.e. contemporaneously).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2006057058 A1 (Kuraoka).
Regarding claim 14, Kuraoka discloses:
An elevator arrangement comprising;
an elevator car (1), the elevator car including,
- at least one first rope clamp (8a) on a first side (right side as shown in figure 3b) of a motor pulley (9, 9a) with respect to a first direction (left/right, horizontal direction), and
- at least one second rope clamp (8b) on a second side (left side as shown in figure 3b) of the motor pulley with respect to the first direction, the second side being different from the first side,
- the at least one first rope clamp and the at least one second rope clamp being configured to receive and detachably attach at least one rope (ropes 6) of an elevator roping, and the at least one first rope clamp and the at least one second rope clamp being on a roof (3c) of the elevator car, or attached to a frame of the elevator car (3c is part of the upper frame comprising the roof of the car).
Regarding claim 19, Kuraoka further discloses:
wherein the at least one first rope clamp (8a) is configured to receive and detachably attach to position on the at least one rope at which the motor pulley applies a force in a second direction (8a attaches to 6 at a point that 9, 9a apply a force in the vertical direction from above); and the at least one second rope clamp is configured to receive and detachably attach to position on the at least one rope at which the motor pulley applies a force in a direction opposite to the second direction (8b attaches to 6 at a point that 9, 9a apply a force in the vertical direction from below).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3519101 A (Sieffert) in view of US 11279593 B2 (Jiang).
Regarding claim 17, Sieffert teaches:
The elevator arrangement as claimed in claim 16.
Sieffert does not teach:
wherein at least one of the car pulleys is attached to a bottom of the elevator car.
However, Jiang teaches:
An elevator arrangement, and
wherein at least one of the car pulleys (330) is attached to a bottom of the elevator car (200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the car pulleys of Sieffert on the bottom of the car, as taught by Jiang, to leave the roof of the car available for construction work. Sieffert notes, “efficient construction methods require the use of full fledged elevators for men and materials” col. 1, lines 54-55. It is known in the art to make the roof of the car accessible for workers to perform construction and maintenance within the hoistway from the car. Rearrangement of the location of the pulleys from the roof to the bottom of the car would be an obvious modification to allow the performance of such work.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3519101 A (Sieffert) in view of WO 2006057058 A1 (Kuraoka).
Regarding claim 20, Sieffert teaches:
The elevator arrangement as claimed in claim 18.
Sieffert does not teach:
wherein the at least one first rope clamp is configured to receive and detachably attach to position on the at least one rope at which the motor pulley applies a force in a second direction; and the at least one second rope clamp is configured to receive and detachably attach to position on the at least one rope at which the motor pulley applies a force in a direction opposite to the second direction.
However, Kuraoka teaches:
An elevator arrangement with two clamps on the roof of an elevator car, and
wherein the at least one first rope clamp (8a) is configured to receive and detachably attach to position on the at least one rope at which the motor pulley applies a force in a second direction (8a attaches to 6 at a point that 9, 9a apply a force in the vertical direction from above); and the at least one second rope clamp is configured to receive and detachably attach to position on the at least one rope at which the motor pulley applies a force in a direction opposite to the second direction (8b attaches to 6 at a point that 9, 9a apply a force in the vertical direction from below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the elevator system of Seiffert to have both ends of the roping connected to the clamps mounted on the car as taught by Kuraoka such that the force applied by the motor pulley would be in opposite directions on the respective clamps for space saving within the hoistway. The configuration of Kuraoka removes the need for a counterweight or a hoistway-mounted tension device in the elevator system. Kuraoka notes on page 7, last paragraph of the attached machine translation, “The space required for the top and the pit of the hoistway can be minimized, and it is possible to provide a counterweight-less elevator device with a small occupied space.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Sieffert does not disclose the newly added limitations of claim 14 regarding the clamps being located on opposing sides of a motor pulley. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as outlined in the rejection above. The clamps 47-1 and 84 reside on different sides of the motor pulley in a horizontal direction. Newly added dependent claims 16-20 are found to be unpatentable over Sieffert, Kuraoka, and/or Jiang. Claims 1-13 and 15 have been amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and are allowed.
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 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, 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.
/M.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654