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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The Examiner would like to note the latest Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submittals are extremely long. The Examiner has considered all of the references submitted as part of the Information Disclosure Statements, but has not found any to be particularly relevant. If Applicant is aware of pertinent material in the references, it should be so stated in a response to this Office action. Applicant is reminded of section 2004, paragraph 13, of the MPEP:
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
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) 13, 14, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Vogel (FR 2146481).
Regarding claim 13, Vogel (FR 2146481) discloses:
A system for an energy storage and delivery system (abstract, Fig 1), comprising:
a tower or frame (4-7, Fig 1);
a lift drive unit (4-6) positioned on the tower or frame, the lift drive unit comprising:
an electric motor (implicit by elements 4-6 and it being a lift) coupled to a driven shaft (by 5) and operable to rotate the driven shaft; and
a steel ribbon (1) wrapping partially around and frictionally engaging the driven shaft (by 5),
the steel ribbon (1) having a first portion and a second portion each wrapping around the driven shaft, the first portion extending vertically from the driven shaft (Fig 1),
wherein rotation of the driven shaft causes the steel ribbon (1) to translate;
a cabin (2) coupled to the first portion; and
a counterweight (3) coupled to the second portion;
wherein the rotation of the driven shaft causes the steel ribbon (1) to move in a first direction to lift the cabin (2) and lower the counterweight (3).
Regarding claim 14/13, Vogel (FR 2146481) discloses wherein the tower or frame comprises one or more roller assemblies (4) positioned at a top portion of the tower.
Regarding claim 18/13, Vogel (FR 2146481) discloses further comprising a trolley (9) disposed on a top portion of the frame actuatable to move laterally along a set of tracks (30,31).
Regarding claim 20, Vogel (FR 2146481) discloses:
A lift drive system for an energy storage and delivery system (abstract), comprising:
an electric motor (implicit by elements 4-7 and it being a lift, Fig 1) coupled to a driven shaft (by numeral 5) and operable to rotate the driven shaft;
a steel ribbon (1) wrapping partially around and frictionally engaging the driven shaft (by 5),
the steel ribbon (1) having a first portion and a second portion each wrapping around the driven shaft (Fig 1), the first portion extending along a vertical path from the driven shaft (Fig 1),
wherein rotation of the driven shaft causes the first portion of the steel ribbon (1) to translate along the vertical path (Fig 1);
a cabin (2) coupled to the first portion; and
a counterweight (3) coupled to the second portion;
wherein the rotation of the driven shaft (by 5) causes the steel ribbon (1) to lift the cabin (2) and lower the counterweight (3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel (FR 2146481).
Regarding claim 17/13, Vogel (FR 2146481) discloses the invention as discussed above, except wherein the lift drive unit is disposed at a bottom portion of the tower or frame.
Vogel, however in another embodiment teaches wherein the lift drive unit is disposed at a bottom portion of the tower or frame (Fig 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Vogel wherein the lift drive unit is disposed at a bottom portion of the tower or frame, as Vogel further teaches.
The motivation to do so would be based on available space surrounding the components, desired cooling (airflow) and cost.
Vogel discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the lift drive unit is disposed at a bottom portion of the tower or frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to arrange the lift drive unit to be disposed at a bottom portion of the tower or frame since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation to do so would be based on available space surrounding the components, desired cooling (airflow) and cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In claim 2, Vogel (FR 2146481) discloses a system for an energy storage and delivery system (abstract, Fig 1), comprising:
a tower or frame (4-7, Fig 1);
a lift drive unit (4-6) positioned on the tower or frame, the lift drive unit comprising: and
a steel ribbon (1) wrapping partially around and frictionally engaging the driven shaft (by 5),
the steel ribbon (1) having a first portion and a second portion each wrapping around the driven shaft, the first portion extending vertically from the driven shaft,
wherein rotation of the driven shaft (by 5) causes the steel ribbon (1) to translate;
a cabin (2) coupled to the first portion of the steel ribbon (1); and
a counterweight (3) coupled to the second portion of the steel ribbon (1);
wherein the rotation of the driven shaft (by 5) causes the steel ribbon (1) to move in a first direction to lift the cabin (2) and lower the counterweight (3).
However, neither Vogel nor any additionally cited art of record teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, inter alia, “an electric motor coupled to a driven shaft and operable to rotate the driven shaft; a brake assembly operatively coupled to the driven shaft and selectively operable to brake a rotation of the driven shaft; a clutch coupled to the driven shaft, the brake assembly disposed between the clutch and the electric motor.”.
Claims 3-12 are allowable based on their virtue of depending on claim 2.
Claims 15,16,19,21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: In claim 15/14 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the one or more roller assemblies includes a first set of rollers and a second set of rollers, wherein the steel ribbon extends from the driven shaft and about a portion of the first set of rollers and the second set of rollers.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Claim 16/15 is also allowable for depending on claim 15.
In claim 19/13 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the driven shaft has a first section and a second section, a brake assembly disposed between the first section and the second section, the first section and the second section each configured to engage the steel ribbon.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
In claim 21/20 inter alia, the specific limitations of “…wherein the driven shaft has a first section and a second section, a brake assembly disposed between the first section and the second section, the first section and the second section each configured to engage the steel ribbon.”, in the combination as claimed are neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAISHADH N DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3038. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
NAISHADH N. DESAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/NAISHADH N DESAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights