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 .0
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
A stowed position – claim 1
A lowered position – claim 1
A self blocking mechanism – claim 2
the self- locking mechanism (16, 18) is a snap action mechanism (16) and/or a latch – claim 5
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 6-7, what is the relationship between the “a lowered position” and the “a operational position”? Is the operational position the same position as the lowered position? Where are two separate positions shown and how are they distinguished? What structure is being claimed?
In claim 5, line 2, the limitation “and/or” is vague and indefinite. Is it possible for the self locking mechanism to be both a snap action mechanism and a latch? Where is this shown or described? What structure is being claimed?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the lateral direction" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 14, line 1, the limitation “it” is vague and indefinite. What does “it” refer to in this claim? What structure is being 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Fernandes et al., US PGPub 2007/0056809.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Fernandes et al. discloses an elevator car (1) defining an interior space (between 2 and 3) for accommodating passengers and/or cargo, the elevator car (1) comprising: a working platform (2) moveable up and down (vertically in fig 1) within the interior space (as described above), and pull means (6, 9-10, 17-18) mounted to the elevator car (1) above the interior space (as described above) and connected (via 7) to the working platform (2) for moving the working platform (2) between a stowed position (2 aligned with 4) and a lowered position (see fig 1) and holding the working platform (2) at an operational position (see fig 1), characterized in that the pull means (6,9-10, 17-18) comprises a retracting mechanism (18), a retracting force of which is set to compensate for the weight of the working platform (2) or less (see [0047]).
Regarding claim 2, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that the pull means (6,9-10, 17-18) comprises a self-blocking mechanism (17) configured to prevent movement of the pull means (6,9-10, 17-18) when a specific activation force towards the lowered position (as described above) is exceeded.
Regarding claim 3, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that a length of the pull means (6,9-10, 17-18) is set in accordance with the lowered position (see fig 1) such that the operational position (as described above) corresponds to the lowered position (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that the working platform (2) comprises a self-locking mechanism (see fig 8) configured to automatically engage with the elevator car (1) when the working platform (2) is in the stowed position (as described above).
Regarding claim 5, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 4, characterized in that the self- locking mechanism (as described above) is a snap action mechanism (20).
Regarding claim 7, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that the working platform (2) comprises a lateral movement restriction mechanism (17).
Regarding claim 8, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 7, characterized in that the lateral movement restriction mechanism (17) is configured to avoid any movement in the lateral direction (see [0046]).
Regarding claim 11, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 1, characterized by a telescopic or foldable ladder (22) which is stored on an upper side (see fig 10) 1of the working platform (2).
Regarding claim 12, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 11, characterized in that the ladder (22) is pivotable around an edge (see fig 10) of the working platform (2).
Regarding claim 13, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 1, characterized by a decorative ceiling (containing 2.3) which is removably attached or attachable above the interior space (as described above) and below the working platform (2), which is in the stowed position (as described above).
Regarding claim 14, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that it does not comprise a scissors mechanism (see fig 1) for moving and holding the working platform (2).
Regarding claim 15, Fernandes et al. discloses an elevator assembly comprising an elevator shaft (see [0001]), characterized by the elevator car (1) according to claim 1.
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) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes et al.
Regarding claim 9, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 7, but does not specify that the lateral movement restriction mechanism (17) is removably attachable to the working platform (2). 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 the restriction mechanism removable since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various element involves only routine skill in the art Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would be motivated to make the structures separable in order to facilitate part replacement during maintenance operations.
Regarding claim 10, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 1, wherein characterized by a pull/push mechanism (10) and configured for pushing the working platform (2) towards the stowed position and pulling the working platform (2) towards the lowered position (see [0050]-[0055]). Fernandes et al. does not specify that the pull/push mechanism is attached or attachable on a lower side of the working platform. 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 locate the push/pull mechanism in the specified manner since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to locate the push/pull mechanism in the specified manner in order place allow the maintenance worker more accessible control of the platform height during maintenance operations.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes et al. in view of Montigny et al., US PGPub 2021/0155458.
Regarding claim 6, Fernandes et al. discloses the elevator car (1) according to claim 1, characterized in that the pull means (6,9-10, 17-18) comprises at least one belt reel (18.2) and a corresponding cable (18.3). Fernandes et al. does not specify that the suspension means is a belt.
(14).
PNG
media_image2.png
458
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Montigny et al. teaches a similar elevator working platform wherein the tension member is a belt (see [0027]). 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 belt described by Montigny et al. in the system disclosed by Fernandes et al. improve the strength and wear resistance of the suspension member.
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, 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.
MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights