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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes et al., US PGPub 2007/0056809 in view of Sittler, US PGPub 2006/0289244.
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), a pull means (6-7, 9-10, 17-18) mounted on top of an elevator car frame (4 plus corner brackets) arranged around an upper end (top in fig 1) of the elevator car (1) above the interior space (as described above) and configured to reach through an opening (see how corner cables 7 pass through openings of corner brackets in frame) defined by the elevator car frame (as described above) into the interior space (as described above) for moving and holding the working platform (2), wherein the pull means (as described above) is connected (7 is connected to four corners of working platform) 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), wherein the pull means (as described above) 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]), and the working platform (2) comprises a lateral movement restriction mechanism (17). Fernandes et al. does not specify that the lateral movement restriction mechanism is removably attachable to the working platform.
PNG
media_image2.png
176
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
176
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sittler teaches a similar elevator working platform (4.1) with suspension means (10) and including a lateral movement restriction mechanism (20) is removably attachable to the working platform (via 26 – see fig 3). 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 removable lateral movement restriction mechanisms described by Sittler to the system disclosed by Fernandes et al. in order to allow for the device to be place in service only when required during certain maintenance operations and placed in storage when it is not necessary.
Regarding claim 2, Fernandes et al. in view of Sittler 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. in view of Sittler 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).
Regarding claim 4, Fernandes et al. in view of Sittler 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. in view of Sittler 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 10, Fernandes et al. in view of Sittler 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.
Regarding claim 11, Fernandes et al. in view of Sittler 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. in view of Sittler 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. in view of Sittler 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. in view of Sittler 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. in view of Sittler discloses an elevator assembly comprising an elevator shaft (see [0001]), characterized by the elevator car (1) according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandes et al. in view of Sittler and further in view of Montigny et al., US PGPub 2021/0155458.
Regarding claim 6, Fernandes et al. in view of Sittler 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. in view of Sittler does not specify that the suspension means is a belt.
(14).
PNG
media_image3.png
458
504
media_image3.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. in view of Sittler improve the strength and wear resistance of the suspension member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 10-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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