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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on August 11, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-14, 17, 18 and 20-26 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Objections to claims 1 and 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims have been considered and are addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 9, 18 and 20 are objected to because the following elements lack proper antecedent basis in the claim(s):
Claims 7 and 18 lines 5-6: “the floor”
Claims 9 and 20 lines 5 and 6, respectively: “the floor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 13 include the limitation “the normal operation configuration is established prior to any reassignment of elevator cars”. However applicants’ originally filed disclosure does not properly describe the normal operation configuration to be established prior to reassigning an elevator car. Reassigning an elevator car, e.g. assigning the third elevator car to the first sector, corresponds to the one or more other operation configurations. Applicants’ specification does not describe switching between a normal operation to one or more other operation configurations in order to reassign an elevator car after a normal operation configuration has been established. Therefore this limitation is considered new matter.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for determining whether the first elevator car or third elevator car will arrive at the floor within the first sector, does not reasonably provide enablement for determining that the first elevator ca is no longer ineligible to serve the elevator call. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claims 1 and 12, from which claims 9 and 20 depend, require that the first elevator car is determined to be ineligible, and in response thereto the third elevator car is assigned to the first sector. Applicants’ originally filed disclosure does not properly describe that after such a determination and assignment is made, the first elevator car is then found to not become ineligible, so that the first elevator car can now serve the elevator call. It is unclear whether applicants intend such a dynamic change in assignment to be within a predetermined delay timing of assignment, based on a condition that the first elevator car may override any other assignments, or another factor. Therefore this limitation does not be the enablement requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bittar (US 5,480,005).
Claims 1 and 12: Bittar discloses a method of operating a building elevator system within a building having a plurality of floors and a control system of a building elevator system comprising a processor and memory comprising computer-executable instructions that are executed by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations, where a building elevator system is controlled, shown in FIG. 1 to comprise elevator systems including a first, second and third elevator system with a first elevator car (lo rise car 15), second elevator car (hi rise car 17) and third elevator car (swing car 16) respectively. Controlling the building elevator system includes dynamically defining sector assignments of the building elevator systems, responsive to usage of the building elevator system, where usage of the building elevator system comprises passenger-traffic-related conditions (demand) of the building elevator system (column 2 lines 54-58). Dynamically defining sector assignments of the building systems dynamically defines building elevator system operation configurations between a normal operation configuration in which the third elevator car is assigned normal assignments after returning to the lobby (column 1 lines 59-62, column 10 lines 54-56) and one or more other operation configurations in which the third elevator car is reassigned without first returning to the lobby (column 2 lines 54-58). During the normal operation configuration of the building elevator system, the first elevator car serves a plurality of floors within a first sector (low rise), the second elevator car serves a plurality of floors within a second sector (high rise), and the third elevator car serves a plurality of floors within the first sector and second sector (column 2 lines 31-34), which during normal operation the third elevator car serves a third sector comprising the first sector and second sector (column 1 lines 59-64, column 3 lines 19-23).
The one or more other operation configurations comprise a first operation configuration where, based at least in part on a determination that the third sector is experiencing a third sector PTR condition (no demand), the third elevator car is assigned to the first sector in response to a determination that the first sector is experiencing a first sector PTR condition (high demand) (column 2 lines 54-58, column 17 lines 54-57, line 65 through column 18 line 4). The assignment of the third elevator car is further based at least in part on a determination that the first elevator car is ineligible to serve a received elevator call, as in the case where the first elevator car is advancing downwardly and the elevator call is an up call from the first sector (column 10 lines 50-54). Controlling the building elevator system further comprises determining, based at least in part on the first sector PTR condition, that the first sector needs assistance with passenger traffic in the first sector, and further based at least in part on the third sector PTR condition, that the third sector is experiencing a passenger traffic level that enables the third sector to assist with the passenger traffic in the first sector (column 2 lines 54-58, column 8 lines 10-19).
Claims 2 and 13: Bittar discloses a method and control system, where
during the normal operation configuration, the third elevator car is configured to serve a plurality of floors within the first sector and the second sector, and during the first operation configurations, the third elevator car is assigned to the first sector based at least in part that the first elevator car is ineligible to serve the received elevator call, as stated above. In order for the third elevator car to be assigned solely to the first sector, it must be configured to serve the first and second sector. The normal operation configuration then would be established prior to a reassignment of the third elevator, and assignment of the third elevator car to the first sector in the first operation configuration would occur only after a determination that all elevator cars assigned to the first sector in the normal operation configuration (first elevator car) are ineligible to serve the received elevator call.
Claims 6 and 17: Bittar discloses a method and control system where the determination that the first elevator car is ineligible to serve the received elevator call is when the first elevator car is advancing downwardly and the elevator call is an up call from the first sector, as stated above. Therefore the determination that the first elevator car is ineligible to serve the received elevator call comprises a determination that the first elevator car is experiencing an opposite stop condition.
Claims 7 and 18: Bittar discloses a method and control system as stated above, where the one or more other operation configurations comprise a second operation configuration comprising assigning the third elevator car to the first sector in response to a determination that the first sector is experiencing the first sector PTR condition based at least in part on determining that the received elevator call has been waiting excessively long (column 3 lines 29-35), and therefore is not serviced within a first selected time period. Therefore the second operation configuration is based at least in part on determining that the first elevator car assigned to the first sector will not arrive at a floor of the plurality of floors within the first sector within a first selected time period.
Claims 23 and 25: Bittar discloses a method and control system as stated above, where the first sector PTR condition comprises a first sector parameter (long wait threshold) (column 17 lines 36-44).
Claims 24 and 26: Bittar discloses a method and control system where assignment of the third elevator car is based at least in part on a determination that the first sector is experiencing a first sector PTR condition, as stated above. The third elevator car traveling from the second sector through the first sector to a lobby is assigned to service elevator calls in the first sector when there are few people in the car traveling from the second sector through the first sector to the lobby (column 15 lines 26-32). Therefore the first and third sector PTR conditions comprise first and third sector parameters respectively, which relate to at least one of an intensity of between-sector traffic and an intensity of within-sector traffic.
Claims 3, 10, 11, 14, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittar (US 5,480,005) in view of De Jong et al. (US 7,258,203 B2).
Claims 3 and 14: Bittar modified by De Jong et al. discloses a method and control system including a transfer floor, as stated above. The first sector is shown in FIG. 1 of Bittar to comprise a first plurality of floors extending from a lower floor (low rise lobby corridor 13) to a top floor (TOP LO) of the first elevator system, the second sector to comprise a second plurality of floors extending from a bottom floor (BOT HI) to an upper floor of the second elevator system and further comprises the lower floor (high rise lobby corridor 14) such that the first sector and second sector overlap at the lower floor, and the third sector to comprise floors in the first sector and floors in the second sector, as can be seen (column 5 lines 18-33). This reference fails to disclose at least one of the plurality of floors within the first sector to comprise a transfer floor, and the first sector and second sector to overlap at a transfer floor, and the transfer floor to be located between the upper floor and the lower floor.
However De Jong et al. teaches a method of operating a building elevator system and a control system of a building elevator system where at least one of a plurality of floor within a first sector (lower floors Z1) includes a transfer floor (column 7 lines 24-30). A first sector and second sector overlap at a transfer floor (TF4), and the transfer floor is located between an upper floor and lower floor, as can be seen from Fig. 2A.
Given the teachings of De Jong et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and control system disclosed in Bittar with providing at least one of the plurality of floors within the first sector to comprise a transfer floor, and the first sector and second sector to overlap at a transfer floor, and the transfer floor to be located between the upper floor and the lower floor. Doing so would allow “a good predictability and accuracy of elevator control [to be] achieved, enabling the elevator group control system to make elevator allocation and transfer floor assignment decisions as correct as possible while at the same time minimizing passenger transfer times on the transfer floors as well as the total journey time” as taught in De Jong et al. (column 3 lines 3-8).
Claims 10 and 11: Bittar discloses a method as stated above, where the third elevator car traveling from the second sector through the first sector to a lobby is assigned to service elevator calls in the first sector when there are few people in the car traveling from the second sector through the first sector to the lobby (column 15 lines 26-32). The third elevator car then is assigned to the first sector in response to the first sector PTR condition comprising an intensity of passenger traffic from the second sector to the first sector. This reference fails to disclose a transfer floor, such that the intensity of passenger traffic is from the second sector through the transfer floor to the first sector.
However De Jong et al. teaches a method of operating a building elevator system where a transfer floor is shown in Fig. 2D to be between a first sector (lower zone) and second sector (upper zone).
Given the teachings of De Jong et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and control system disclosed in Bittar with providing a transfer floor between the first sector and second sector, such that the intensity of passenger traffic is from the second sector through the transfer floor to the first sector. Doing so would allow “a good predictability and accuracy of elevator control [to be] achieved, enabling the elevator group control system to make elevator allocation and transfer floor assignment decisions as correct as possible while at the same time minimizing passenger transfer times on the transfer floors as well as the total journey time” as taught in De Jong et al. (column 3 lines 3-8).
Claims 21 and 22: Bittar modified by De Jong et al. discloses a method and control system where the third sector comprises the first sector and the second sector, as stated above. The third sector then includes a third plurality of floors extending from the lower floor to the upper floor (column 3 lines 1-5), as shown in FIG. 1 of Bittar.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittar (US 5,480,005) in view of Witczak et al. (US 2016/0297640 A1).
Claims 9 and 20: Bittar discloses a method and control system where the third elevator car is assigned to the first sector in response to a determination that the first sector is experiencing a fist sector PTR condition, and where the determination that the first elevator car is ineligible to serve the elevator call is when the first elevator car is advancing downwardly and the elevator call is an up call from the first sector, as stated above. Therefore the determination that the first elevator car is ineligible to serve the elevator call is based on a second operation configuration of the one or more operation configurations, which includes a determination as to whether the first elevator car or third elevator car will arrive at the floor of the plurality of floors within the first sector first, as is recognized in the art. The third elevator car then is moved to the floor of the plurality of floors within the first sector (column 3 lines 23-27). This reference fails to disclose the elevator call to be determined to be sent from a person designated as a VIP.
However Witczak et al. teaches a method of operating a building elevator system and a control system of a building elevator system, where an elevator call is determined to be sent from a person designated as a VIP (page 4 ¶ [0042]).
Given the teachings of Witczak et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and control system disclosed in Bittar with providing the elevator call to be determined to be sent from a person designated as a VIP. Doing so would allow a “VIP car [to] be empty of other passengers when called and may travel directly to a desired destination floor without having to stop at other floors” as taught in Witczak et al. (page 4 ¶ [0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed March 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state on pages 11-12 of the response corresponding to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) that "the Examiner appears to suggest that a mechanism for an elevator car, once determined to be ineligible to serve a call, to later become eligible again, is not disclosed in or supported by the elevator control system disclosed in the pending Specification". However the rejection corresponds to the language presented in Claims 9 and 20, which states "based at least in part on a determination that the first elevator car has not become ineligible to serve an elevator call". Claims 9 and 20 depend from Claims 1 and 12 respectively, which state "based at least in part on a determination that the first elevator car is ineligible to serve a received elevator call". Therefore according to Claims 1 and 12, the first elevator car is determined to be ineligible to serve the elevator call. Claims 9 and 20 do not describe an additional step or processing which is to occur after the first elevator car is determined to be ineligible to serve the elevator call, as in dynamically changing the elevator car's eligibility at different times, but instead states that the elevator car was not initially determined to be ineligible, thereby directly contradicting the requirements of Claims 1 and 20. Since the specification does not properly describe such a situation, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is proper.
On pages 17-20 of the response, applicants argue six claimed features patentable over the prior art. However the arguments are not found persuasive. Claimed Feature (1): three elevator systems are shown in FIG. 1 of Bittar, each with its own elevator car (15, 16, 17). The swing car can be assigned to either the low rise group or the high rise group based on which needs help according to a level of traffic (column 3 lines 35-48). Therefore sector assignments of the swing car are dynamically assigned in response to usage. Claimed Feature (2): Bittar discloses that the swing car is assigned to either the high rise group or low rise group based on traffic burden (column 13 lines 38-41), which is monitored as a basis for dynamic sector assignment of the swing car (column 3 lines 30-48) when the swing car has a light load (column 2 lines 64-66). Therefore the swing car is dynamically assigned a specific sector based on a first, second and third PTR condition of a first, second and third sector, respectively. Claimed Feature (3): Bittar discloses the swing car to be dynamically assigned a sector, as shown above, and further that the elevator system operates in a normal building operation configuration in which the swing car travels back to a lobby after concluding a run (column 1 lines 59-62) and another operation configuration in which the swing car is reassigned without first returning to the lobby (column 2 lines 54-58). Therefore Bittar properly defines building elevator system operation configurations including a normal operation configuration and another operation configuration. Claimed Feature (4): As shown above, Bittar discloses a normal operation configuration in which the swing car returns to a lobby after concluding a run, and another operation configuration in which the swing car does not return to the lobby after concluding a run. In either of these operation configurations, it is disclosed that different elevator groups serve different high rise floors and low rise floors, and a swing car can serve either the low rise group or the high rise group (column 2 lines 31-35). The swing car is able to be reassigned to either group only after reaching the lobby (column 10 lines 10-14), and therefore can be reassigned to serve floors in the first sector or second sector in the normal operation configuration. Claimed Feature (5): Bittar discloses that a swing car (p) traveling upwardly through the low rise group to the high rise group can be reassigned to answer down hall calls when said low rise group needs help shown by the down hall calls waiting longer than a wait threshold. The swing car then is not allowed to be used in the high rise group. If the down hall calls have not been waiting longer than the wait threshold, the swing car continues to the high rise group to be used in the high rise group because the low rise group does not need help (column 17 lines 32-53). When a low rise hall call has waited longer than the wait threshold, the car designated for the low rise group would be ineligible to service said low rise hall call, thereby making said low rise hall call continually wait for service, as is recognized in the art. Therefore when the low rise hall call waits more than the wait threshold, the elevator car serving the low rise group would be found to be ineligible to service the low rise hall call, and in response thereto, switches the swing car assignment to the low rise group to help based on the traffic (column 3 lines 42-48). Claimed Feature (6): As shown above, Bittar discloses that based on a first sector PTR condition, a swing car is able to assist. Such assistance is conditional based also on whether the swing car is able to assist a specific rise group according to whether the swing car is located in the high rise group or the low rise group, and calls assigned to the swing car (column 15 lines 36-45). Therefore Bittar properly anticipates applicants’ invention as required by the independent claims.
Additionally, applicants state on page 20 that the “pending claims also recite that the system’s operation configurations and sector assignments are dynamically defined and adjusted in response to real-time PTR conditions, which is not found in Bittar’s disclosure”. However applicant’s claims do not include limitations describing the system’s operation configurations and sector assignments to be “adjusted”, nor that the changes/defining is “in response to real-time” PTR conditions. As shown above, with respect to Claimed Feature (1), the swing car is dynamically assigned based on a level of traffic in the different sectors as the swing car travels through the sectors (column 3 lines 35-48). Therefore the specific sector in which the swing car is assigned can be dynamically defined in response to a real time PTR condition (level of traffic) for a respective sector. Bittar then properly anticipates applicants’ invention as required by the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 November 7, 2025