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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicants’ amendment filed December 15, 2025. Claims 1, 3-10, 12-14, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 22 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 8,540,057 B2) in view of Kang et al. (US 7,600,613 B2).
Claims 1 and 7: Schuster et al. discloses a system for enhancing elevator positioning, comprising: a camera system (second sensor 6) designed to record pictures including a landing floor of a landing (column 14 lines 43-56), and a computer system designed to determine a distance related to degree of flushness with the landing floor, wherein the computer system is designed to determine whether the car floor and a landing floor are level with each other based on a vertical difference of floor thresholds (column 10 lines 44-58). The camera system is shown in Fig. 6 to be a single second sensor (6), and therefore comprise a single camera. This reference fails to disclose the distance to be an absolute distance.
However Kang et al. teaches a system for enhancing elevator positioning, where an optical device, described as a camera (column 6 lines 10-11), provides images of a landing floor of a landing, and a computer system calculates car position (column 2 line 66 through column 3 line 4) using a determined distance (P) (column 3 lines 54-60). The position is further described as an absolute position (column 1 lines 7-9) and therefore the distance from which the position is calculated would also be an absolute distance.
Given the teachings of Kang 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 system disclosed in Schuster et al. with providing the distance to be an absolute distance. Doing so would provide “low-cost and high-performance absolute position referencing for elevators” as taught in Kang et al. (column 1 lines 61-63) “to provide precise position information of the elevator” (column 2 lines 50-52).
Claims 3 and 14: Schuster et al. modified by Kang et al. discloses a system where the camera records pictures of a landing floor of a landing, as stated above. The camera is disclosed in Schuster et al. to be included in a device (10) (column 6 lines 18-19), where the device, and therefore camera, is shown in FIG. 1 to be positioned above doors of the elevator car (column 6 lines 24-25). Since the camera is positioned above the doors of the elevator car and records a landing floor, the camera would be aimed downwardly towards the landing floor, respectively, as is recognized in the art.
Claims 4 and 16: Schuster et al. modified by Kang et al. discloses a system as state above, where the computer system is disclosed in Schuster et al. to store reference images of each of a plurality of landings to compare current images against the reference images (reference value) (column 9 line 58 through column 10 line 1). The computer system further concludes a poor levelling (degree of flushness is insufficient) when a deviation between the car floor and the landing floor is detected to be more than a threshold (column 10 lines 52-58).
Claim 8: Schuster et al. modified by Kang et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the camera is disclosed in Schuster et al. to record images at a time instant of the doors opening (column 10 lines 20-25. This reference fails to disclose the images to be recorded as soon as the doors start to open and wherein a time between a beginning of door opening and stopping analyzing a levelling condition by the system is shorter than 10 seconds or wherein the doors have opened less than 50 cm.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the images to be recorded as soon as the doors start to open and wherein a time between a beginning of door opening and stopping analyzing a levelling condition by the system is shorter than 10 seconds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would provide sufficient amount of time for passengers to be informed of any large relative distances before entering or leaving the elevator car.
Claim 10: Schuster et al. modified by Kang et al. discloses a system as stated above, where an elevator system is shown in Fig. 1 of Schuster et al. to comprise the system (column 1 lines 31-32).
Claim 12: Schuster et al. modified by Kang et al. discloses a system where the camera records pictures of a landing floor of a landing, as stated above. The camera is disclosed in Schuster et al. to be included in a device (10) (column 6 lines 18-19), where the device, and therefore camera, is shown in FIG. 1 to be positioned above doors of the elevator car (column 6 lines 24-25). Since the camera is positioned above the doors of the elevator car and records a landing floor, the camera would be aimed down towards the landing floor, as is recognized in the art. This reference fails to disclose the camera to be positioned above the doors of the elevator car and aimed straight down or at an angle of less than 30° to the vertical direction.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the camera to be aimed down at an angle of less than 30° to the vertical direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so require the camera to be against or in close proximity to a wall of the elevator car, thereby allowing the camera to be concealed for aesthetic purposes.
Claim 21: Schuster et al. modified by Kang et al. discloses a system where the computer system determines an absolute distance, as stated above. The computer system compares the absolute distance to a recorded value to determine whether the car floor and the landing floor are level (flush) with each other, as shown in Schuster et al. (column 10 lines 45-63).
Claim 22: Schuster et al. modified by Kang et al. discloses a system where the camera records pictures of a landing floor of a landing, as stated above. The camera is disclosed in Schuster et al. to be included in a device (10) (column 6 lines 18-19), where the device, and therefore camera, is shown in FIG. 1 to be positioned above doors of the elevator car (column 6 lines 24-25).
Claims 5, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 8,540,057 B2) modified by Kang et al. (US 7,600,613 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Scoville et al. (US 10,343,874 B2).
Claims 5, 18 and 19: Schuster et al. modified by Kang et al. discloses a system as state above, where the system is disclosed in Schuster et al. to determine a degree of flushness between the car floor and the landing floor from the recorded pictures (column 10 lines 44-58). Therefore the system recognizes the car floor and/or the landing floor from the recorded pictures. The system further includes a camera-based passenger detector system for determining instantaneous car occupancy (column 10 lines 20-23). These references fail to disclose the camera-based passenger detector system to include passenger detecting shape recognition software.
However Scoville et al. teaches a system for an elevator, where a camera-based passenger detector system includes passenger detecting shape recognition software (column 8 lines 21-54).
Given the teachings of Scoville 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 system disclosed in Schuster et al. as modified by Kang et al. with providing the camera-based passenger detector system to include passenger detecting shape recognition software. Doing so would “more accurately call cars … based on received sensor data as well as user input” as taught in Scoville et al. (column 8 lines 21-27).
Claims 6, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 8,540,057 B2) modified by Kang et al. (US 7,600,613 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Magee (US 3,720,292).
Claims 6 and 13: Schuster et al. modified by Kang et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose an acoustic or optic warning means selected from the group consisting of sirens, beepers, loudspeakers, displays and lights, where the respective means of the elevator system are used.
However Magee teaches a system for elevator positioning, where an optic warning means is provided as a signal light in response to an improperly positioned or operating car (column 1 lines 54-63).
Given the teachings of Magee, 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 system disclosed in Schuster et al. as modified by Kang et al. with providing an optic warning means using lights, using respective means of the elevator system. Doing so would provide an observable warning from a supervisory personnel “when a car … fails to reach the desired position, and/or overshoots, or oscillates around, the desired position” as taught in Magee (column 1 lines 57-63).
Claim 9: Schuster et al. modified by Kang et al. discloses a system as stated above, but fails to disclose information of being poorly leveled to be transmitted to an elevator control system together with a landing number and/or car number where poor levelling occurred and/or the elevator is controlled not to open the doors further, but to close the doors and to move to an adjacent floor, or to move slowly to a position where a correct levelling is assumed, and wherein in response to one or more floors having been detected to have poor levelling or an elevator car having been detected to be the reason for poor levelling, the elevator car to be parked to await maintenance.
However Magee teaches a system for an elevator, where an elevator car is slowly moved (leveled) to a position where a correct levelling is assumed in response to a determination of the elevator car traveling beyond a landing (column 2 lines 57-63), and wherein in response to one or more floors having been detected to have poor levelling, the elevator car is parked (deactivated) to await maintenance (column 1 lines 44-47).
Given the teachings of Magee, 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 system disclosed in Schuster et al. as modified by Kang et al. with moving the elevator car slowly to a position where a correct levelling is assumed, and wherein in response to one or more floors having been detected to have poor levelling, the elevator car to be parked to await maintenance. Doing so would remove an elevator car from service upon “an unsafe or undesirable operation of such a vehicle” as taught in Magee (column 1 lines 44-47).
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 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 February 11, 2026