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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1 in the reply filed on 7/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner has withdrawn claim 15 as being drawn to a non-elected species. Specifically, claim 15 details a system where the proximal end (36a) of the first of the first elastic element (36) is arranged below the distal end (36b) of the first elastic element (36); and the proximal end (46a) of the first of the second elastic element (46) is arranged below the distal end (46b) of the second elastic element (46). This configuration is shown in fig 4 which has been non-elected without traverse. Therefore claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the following should be deleted “Elevator safety” and in its place the following should be inserted: “An elevator safety”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, the following should be deleted “Elevator safety” and in its place the following should be inserted: “The elevator safety”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
at least one of the first and second elastic elements (as described above) comprises a leaf spring package including a plurality of leaf springs, wherein the second elastic element comprises in particular a different number of leaf springs than the first elastic element. (claim 9)
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 § 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) 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppensteiner, US Patent 4,538,706 in view of Kuczera et al., US PGPub 2017/0029247.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Koppensteiner discloses elevator safety brake arrangement (see fig 1) for being attached to an elevator car (see abstract) or to an elevator counterweight (see abstract) and configured for braking movement of the elevator car (as described above) or of the elevator counterweight (as described above) in an emergency situation; the elevator safety brake arrangement (as described above) defining a passage (2) extending in a longitudinal direction (top to bottom in fig 1) and allowing a longitudinal guide member (3), such as a guide rail, to pass through; the elevator safety brake arrangement (as described above) comprising a first safety brake (Fig 1) wherein the first safety brake comprises: a first brake shoe (4) arranged on one side (right side in fig 1) of the passage (2); a first roller (8) and a first elastic element (12) arranged on an opposite side (left side in fig 1) of the passage (2); the first elastic element (12) extending at a first angle (see fig 1) with respect to the longitudinal direction (as described above), with a proximal end (adjacent 14) of the first elastic element (12) being closer to the passage (2) than a distal end (adjacent 13) of the first elastic element (12), thereby defining a first tapered region (see fig 1) between the passage (2) and the first elastic element (12),wherein the first roller (8) is, at least in an activated condition (shown with 8 atin contact with 16) of the first safety brake (as described above), located within said first tapered region (as described above) defined by the passage (2) and the first elastic element (12); and wherein the first roller (8) is capable of moving along the first elastic element (12) towards the proximal end (as described above) of the first elastic element (12) into a wedged condition (see 8 when centered on N in fig 1) between the first elastic element (12) and a guide member (3) passing through the passage (3), in which the first elastic element (12) exerts a first pressing force (due to bending of spring 10) onto the first roller (8). Koppensteiner therefore discloses the basic safety structure but does not specify a second safety brake with different elastic properties.
PNG
media_image2.png
410
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kuczera et al. teaches a similar elevator safety brake (fig 2) with a first (16a) and second (16b) safety brake arranged on one side of a guide rail channel wherein the elastic properties of the first elastic element (26 associated with 16a) differ from the elastic properties of the second elastic element (26 associated with 16b). (claim 1)
wherein the first (16a) and second safety brakes (16b) are combined with each other forming a single elevator safety brake (see fig 2). (claim 2)
wherein the first elastic element (as described above) has a different elastic module (and associated spring force) than the second elastic element (as described above). (claim 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the stacked brake of varied elasticity as describe by Kuczera et al. in the system disclosed by Koppensteiner reduce the impact loads associated with rapid deceleration upon safety triggering events.
Regarding claims 4-6, Koppensteiner in view of Kuczera et al. disclose the elevator safety brake arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the two elastic elements have different elasticity but do not specify that the variable elasticity is formed from different length and/or a different thickness than the second elastic element; different materials, or different angles. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to create a system with which creates variable elasticity in the specified manner since applicant has not disclosed that each method solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with each method of producing variable spring force. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ the specified methods to produce variable spring force in order to employ the most readily available and lowest cost solution. Furthermore, if it is the Applicant position that each mode of producing variable spring elasticity are not obvious variants Applicant is encourage to state so on record.
Regarding claim 7, Koppensteiner in view of Kuczera et al. disclose elevator safety brake arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the first elastic element (as described above – Kuczera et al.) and the second elastic element (as described above – Kuczera et al.) are arranged at the same angle (see fig 1) with respect to the longitudinal direction (as described above).
Regarding claim 8, Koppensteiner in view of Kuczera et al. disclose elevator safety brake arrangement according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first and second elastic elements (as described above) comprises at least one leaf spring (10).
Regarding claim 10, Koppensteiner in view of Kuczera et al. disclose elevator safety brake arrangement according claim 1, wherein the first and second elastic elements (as described above) are located on the same side (see fig 1 – Kuczera et al.) of the passage (2).
Regarding claim 11, Koppensteiner in view of Kuczera et al. disclose elevator safety brake arrangement (20) according to claim 1, wherein the first and second safety brakes (as describe above) are spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal direction (see fig 1 – Kuczera et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Koppensteiner in view of Kuczera et al. disclose elevator system ( see fig 4) comprising:a hoistway extending between a plurality of landings (elevator system); at least one guide member (3), extending in a longitudinal direction (as described above) within the hoistway between the plurality of landings; at least one elevator car, configured for moving along the elevator car guide member (2) between the plurality of landings; and at least one elevator safety brake arrangement according to claim 1, which is attached to the at least one elevator car (as described above), wherein the at least one elevator car guide member (3) passes through the passage (2) formed by the at least one elevator safety brake arrangement (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Koppensteiner in view of Kuczera et al. disclose Elevator system according to claim 12, further comprising:at least one elevator counterweight (see abstract), configured for moving concurrently and in opposite direction with respect to the at least one elevator car (see abstract) along at least one elevator counterweight elevator car guide member (3); and at least one elevator safety brake arrangement (see fig 1) which is attached to the at least one elevator counterweight (see abstract), wherein the at least one elevator counterweight guide member (3) passes through the passage (2) defined by the elevator safety brake arrangement (as described above).
Regarding claim 14, Koppensteiner in view of Kuczera et al. disclose Elevator system according to claim 12 wherein, in at least one elevator safety brake arrangement (fig 1), the proximal end (as described above) of the first elastic element (12) is arranged above the distal end (as described above) of the first elastic element (12); and, when duplicated in the manner described by Kuczera et al., the proximal end of the second elastic element is arranged above the distal end of the second elastic element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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:
Claim 9 is patentable over the prior art of record because the teachings of the references taken as a whole do not show or render obvious the combination set forth in claims 9, including every structural element recited in the claims, especially, the configuration wherein at least one of the first and second elastic elements comprises a leaf spring package including a plurality of leaf springs, wherein the second elastic element comprises in particular a different number of leaf springs than the first elastic element.
None of the references of the prior art teach or suggest the elements of the elevator system as advanced above and such do not provide the necessary motivation, absent applicant's specification, for modifying the system in the manner required by the claims.
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