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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FI 118047 B (Manninen, cited on the IDS filed May 8, 2025) in view of US 11267679 B2 (Fonteneau).
Regarding claim 1, Manninen teaches:
An elevator car (1) comprising:
a retractable apron (4), which is movable between an extended position (figure 5) and a retracted position (figure 6); and
a retraction mechanism (5), which is configured for retracting the apron (4) from the extended position to the retracted position when the elevator car (1) approaches the bottom of a hoistway (shaft, not labeled, bottom of shaft shown in figures 4-6), so that the apron (4) does not contact the bottom of the hoistway (as shown in figure 6);
wherein the retraction mechanism (5) comprises an apron tension member (7), comprising a rope or belt (line 8 of the claims in the machine translation, “flexible elongate member (7), such as a rope, belt, chain or the like”), which is coupled to the apron (4) for moving the apron from the extended position to the retracted position, wherein the apron tension member comprises in particular a first end (11), which is coupled to the apron, and a second end (10), which is coupled to the elevator car (1) or any activation system provided at the elevator car.
Manninen does not teach:
wherein the apron is made of a flexible material.
However, Fonteneau teaches:
An elevator car with a retractable apron, and
wherein the apron (302) is made of a flexible material (302 is made of a flexible material designed to bend, figure 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a flexible material for the apron of Manninen, as taught by Fonteneau, to prevent damage to the apron. As noted by Fonteneau, “Such contact could cause significant damage to the car apron due to the rigid and fixed nature of the car apron.” Col. 1, lines 43-44. Accidental contact with the pit of the hoistway by the apron can cause damage to the apron, flexible material allows the apron to tolerate some contact before the apron is damaged.
Regarding claim 2, Manninen further teaches:
wherein the retraction mechanism (5) is a completely mechanical mechanism (“mechanical drive device” lines 5-6 of the claims, machine translation provided by Applicant), which does not comprise any electric components (drive device 5 operates without electric components).
Regarding claim 4, Manninen further teaches:
wherein the retraction mechanism (5) comprises at least one roller (6), which is supported by the elevator car (1), for deflecting the apron tension member (7), wherein the retraction mechanism (5) comprises in particular two rollers (6, 20) or three rollers (6, 20, 21), supported by the elevator car (1).
Regarding claim 5, Manninen further teaches:
wherein the at least one roller (6) and the apron tension member (7) are arranged in a configuration to form a block and tackle (6 and 7, in conjunction with shaft mounted retractor 14, form a block and tackle), in particular a block and tackle with a 1:2 roping (figure 3), when the elevator car (1) is mounted in the hoistway.
Regarding claim 7, Manninen further teaches:
comprising two retraction mechanisms (5), wherein the two retraction mechanisms are in particular provided on two opposite lateral sides of the elevator car (figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, Manninen further teaches:
An elevator system comprising:
a hoistway (shaft, not labeled, bottom of shaft shown in figures 4-6) having a bottom (figure 6) and extending between a plurality of landings (“floors” page 4, line 5 of the translation);
an elevator car (1) according to claim 1, which is configured for traveling along the hoistway between the plurality of landings (“1 stops between floors so that the floor of the elevator car is substantially higher than the floor level” page 4 of the translation, line 5); and
at least one activation member (14) provided in the hoistway (shaft);
wherein the at least one activation member (14) is configured for interacting with the at least one retraction mechanism (5) of the elevator car (1) for causing the at least one retraction mechanism to retract the apron (4) so that the apron (4) does not contact the bottom of the hoistway, when the elevator car approaches the bottom of the hoistway (“no part of the foot guard 2 touches the bottom of the elevator shaft at any time.” Page 4 of the translation, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Fonteneau further teaches:
comprising at least one guide rail (109), wherein the at least one activation member (316a, 316b) is mounted to the at least one guide rail, wherein the at least one activation member extends from the at least one guide rail (“the shaft stop is fixedly connected to at least one of a shaft wall, a landing door frame, and a guide rail.” Col. 2, lines 23-24).
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 activation member of Manninen to the guide rail, as taught by Fonteneau, so the safe retraction of the apron is not reliant upon distance to the hoistway walls. Manninen teaches attaching the activation member, “to a fixed structure adjacent to the vertical runway, for example the wall of the elevator shaft,” page 4 of the translation provided by Applicant, lines 35-40. It would be obvious to place the activation member extending from the guide rail in an elevator system where the walls of the hoistway are not positioned close enough to the travel path of the car to initiate retraction of the apron.
Regarding claim 11, Manninen further teaches:
wherein the at least one activation member (14) includes at least one of a roller, a pinion and a rack (14 is a roller, figure 4),
wherein the at least one activation member includes at least one roller (14), which is configured for deflecting an apron tension member (7), of the at least retraction mechanism (5), when the elevator car (1) approaches the bottom of the hoistway (figure 6).
Regarding claim 12, Manninen further teaches:
A method of moving the apron (4) of the elevator car (1) in an elevator system according to claim 9, wherein the method includes:
activating the at least one retraction mechanism (5) of the elevator car (1) in the course of moving the elevator car towards the bottom of the hoistway such as to move the apron (4) from the extended position to the retracted position (as shown in progressive figures 4-6), thereby preventing the apron (4) from contacting the bottom of the hoistway.
Regarding claim 13, Manninen further teaches:
wherein the method includes activating the at least one retraction mechanism (5) of the elevator car (1) by engaging at least one activation member (14) located within the hoistway (shaft) with at least one component of the at least one retraction mechanism (member 7 of mechanical drive 5 is engaged by 14).
Regarding claim 14, Manninen further teaches:
wherein the method includes extending the apron (4) from its retracted position (figure 6) into its extended position (figure 4) in the course of elevating the elevator car (1) from the bottom of the hoistway (“When the elevator car 1 rises up from the position… shown in Figures 3 and 6, the function of the leg guard 2 is reversed, i.e. it recovers from the second position II by gravity and lock in Figures 1 and 4. First position I.” page 4 of the translation, second to last paragraph).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110950221 A (Xu et al., cited on the PTO-892 of April 2, 2026) in view of US 11267679 B2 (Fonteneau).
Regarding claim 1, Xu et al. teach:
An elevator car (1) comprising:
a retractable apron (5, 6), which is movable between an extended position (figure 1) and a retracted position (figure 4); and
a retraction mechanism (7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17), which is configured for retracting the apron (5, 6) from the extended position to the retracted position when the elevator car (1) approaches the bottom of a hoistway (pit, not shown), so that the apron does not contact the bottom of the hoistway (“As shown in FIG. 3, when the elevator car does not reach bottom pit, a second toe 6 is in an unfolded state, as shown in FIG. 5, when the elevator car close to the elevator pit, the drive member 2 on the drive end 41 of the linkage rod 4, the linkage rod 4 to rotate, the linkage rod 4 of the swing end 42 pulling the second plate 6 moves upwards, the second toe 6 switched to the folded state, to avoid generating interference with the pit.” Page 4 of the attached machine translation, paragraph 7 in its entirety);
wherein the retraction mechanism comprises an apron tension member (9), comprising a rope or a belt (9 is a cable, i.e. a wire rope), which is coupled to the apron (6) for moving the apron from the extended position to the retracted position, wherein the apron tension member comprises in particular a first end (end connected to 6), which is coupled to the apron, and a second end (end connected to 42), which is coupled to the elevator car (1) or any activation system provided at the elevator car (the second end of 9 is connected to car 1 by way of activating components 3 and 4).
Xu et al are silent to the material of the apron.
However, Fonteneau teaches:
An elevator car with a retractable apron, and
wherein the apron (302) is made of a flexible material (302 is made of a flexible material designed to bend, figure 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a flexible material for the apron of Xu et al., as taught by Fonteneau, to prevent damage to the apron. As noted by Fonteneau, “Such contact could cause significant damage to the car apron due to the rigid and fixed nature of the car apron.” Col. 1, lines 43-44. Accidental contact with the pit of the hoistway by the apron can cause damage to the apron, flexible material allows the apron to tolerate some contact before the apron is damaged.
Regarding claim 6, Xu et al. further teach:
wherein the retraction mechanism comprises a rack and/or a pinion (11 is a rack).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument on page 5, paragraph 3, of the Remarks that Manninen was not cited against original claim 8, now incorporated in claim 1, the Examiner agrees that Manninen does not teach the apron being made of a flexible material. This argument is rendered moot, however, by the current rejection which relies upon Fonteneau to teach the flexible material. Regarding the argument on page 5, paragraph 4, that claim 1 as amended is not anticipated by JP ‘433, this argument is moot as JP ‘433 is not relied upon in the current rejection.
Applicant argues from page 5, paragraph 5, through page 6, that Fonteneau does not anticipate independent claim 1, as amended, due to the lack of an apron tension member as claimed. The Examiner agrees that Fonteneau does not anticipate claim 1. Fonteneau is relied upon in the current rejection to teach the flexible material of the apron as well as the placement of the activation member. Manninen and Xu et al. are each relied upon to teach the tension member and related components Applicant notes are missing from Fonteneau.
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
Prosecution Insights