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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-12, 38-40, 44-46 and 54-58 are pending with claims 38-40, 44-46 and 58 being previously withdrawn. An action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 6-8 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.
Claim 6 is directed to the “elevator test unit according to any preceding claim 1”. However it is unclear what applicant intends as “any preceding claim 1” as there is only one claim 1. For examining purposes, this claim is interpreted as being directed to “elevator test unit according to claim 1”.
Claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims do not correct the deficiencies of claim 6.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketoviita (US 5,736,694) in view of Juntunen et al. (US 5,679,934).
Claim 1: Ketoviita discloses an elevator test unit for testing an operation of an elevator system, the test unit (car unit 2) includes a processor in order to function properly, as is recognized in the art, and a first input (push button) communicatively coupled to the processer, configured to receive a command input (column 3 lines 36-39). The first input is further described as a car alarm button (column 1 lines 57-62) in which the command input instructs performance of a test operation in relation to an elevator car associated with the test unit immediately after pressing the button (column 11 lines 55-57). A first output communicatively coupled to the processor, is configured, in response to receipt of the command input at the first input, to output a signal to cause generation of a first level request signal by a car operating panel (car call panel) of the elevator car to be sent to cause the test operation and move the car sequentially to another position (column 6 lines 30-35). The first level request signal then is sent to a main elevator controller for moving the elevator car, as is recognized in the art.
A second input in a service unit, communicatively coupled to the processor, is configured to receive an alarm message and an indication of whether the test operation occurred successfully (status of the elevator’s function), and a second output communicatively coupled to the processor is configured to output a report as part of the alarm message for service personnel to review based on the received indication (column 11 lines 60-62). The test unit is configured to be mounted to the elevator car (column 2 lines 54-55). This reference fails to disclose the report to be generated by the processor.
However Juntunen et al. teaches an elevator test unit including a car operating panel (touchscreen display) (column 2 lines 1-3) having a processor, as is recognized in the art. The car operating panel includes an an output communicatively coupled to the processor to output messages for maintenance purposes (column 3 lines 15-23). The messages for maintenance purposes then are generated by the processor of the car operating panel, as is recognized in the art.
Given the teachings of Juntunen 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 elevator test unit disclosed in Ketoviita with providing a second output to be included in the car operating panel, such that the report is generated by the processor. Doing so would allow a “serviceman [to] use the screen [of the car operating panel] as a tool for elevator maintenance without having to enter into the machine room as failure information can be displayed directly on the same screen” as taught in Juntunen et al. (column 1 lines 60-63).
Claim 3: Ketoviita modified by Juntunen et al. discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, where the test unit is disclosed in Ketoviita to be communicatively coupled to a car operating panel (interface) of the elevator car (column 3 lines 36-39) and the signal is configured to cause generation of the first level request signal by the car operating panel (column 11 lines 55-63).
Claim 4: Ketoviita modified by Juntunen et al. discloses an elevator test unit where the first output is configured to send the outputted signal to a main elevator controller, as stated above. Therefore the first output is communicatively coupled to the main elevator controller. The signal is disclosed in Ketoviita to be sent in response to a regularly occurring fault having a frequency that exceeds a value (column 11 lines 49-52). Therefore the signal is sent automatically, and is considered a first simulated level request signal.
Claim 5: Ketoviita modified by Juntunen et al. discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, where the second output is disclosed in Ketoviita to be communicatively coupled to a caller unit including a microphone and loudspeaker associated with the elevator car, and the caller unit is configured to handle one or more emergency communication functions via connection to a service center for making emergency calls (column 3 lines 36-43).
Claim 6: Ketoviita modified by Juntunen et al. discloses an elevator test unit where the second output is configured to output a report based on whether the test operation occurred successfully, as stated above. An operation determining sub-system is disclosed in Ketoviita to determine whether the elevator car properly opens its door, and is communicatively coupled to the second input to output the indication of whether the test operation occurred successful (column 6 lines 33-35).
Claim 7: Ketoviita modified by Juntunen et al. discloses an elevator test unit where the operation determining sub-system determines whether an elevator door opens properly, as stated above. The operation determining sub-system then includes a door switch for detecting an open or close state of the elevator door, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 8: Ketoviita modified by Juntunen et al. discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, wherein the indication of whether the test operation occurred successfully includes an indication of a movement of the elevator car and/or the operation of an elevator door of the elevator car, as shown in Ketoviita (column 6 lines 30-35).
Claim 9: Ketoviita modified by Juntunen et al. discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, where the first output is disclosed in Ketoviita to cause generation of a second level request signal corresponding to immediate service being required such that the first level request signal corresponding to non-immediate service requests is different to the second level request signal (column 5 lines 7-8). The second level request signal would be sent to a main elevator controller, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 10: Ketoviita modified by Juntunen et al. discloses an elevator test unit where the first output is configured to send the outputted signal to a main elevator controller, as stated above. The first output is disclosed in Ketoviita to cause generation of a second simulated level request signal corresponding to immediate service being required such that the first level request signal corresponding to non-immediate service requests is different to the second simulated level request signal (column 5 lines 7-8). The second simulated level request signal would be sent to the main elevator controller, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 11: Ketoviita modified by Juntunen et al. discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, where the test unit is disclosed in Ketoviita to generate the input command after a predetermined period has passed since an event detected by the test unit (column 11 lines 39-40).
Claim 12: Ketoviita modified by Juntunen et al. discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, where the test unit is disclosed in Ketoviita to detect a plurality of events, to determine a peak period corresponding to a frequency of occurrence based on the detected events, and to set the predetermined period based on the determined peak period (column 11 lines 48-51).
Claims 54-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketoviita (US 5,736,694) in view of Fauconnet (US 11,440,769 B2).
Claim 54: Ketoviita discloses a caller unit (car unit 2) configured to be mounted with respect to an elevator car (column 12 lines 12-14), and configured to be communicatively coupled to an emergency intercom button (push button) of a car operating panel (interface) of the elevator car, and an emergency intercom system including a microphone and loudspeaker of the elevator car for connection to a service center and making emergency calls (column 3 lines 36-43). The emergency intercom button is further described as a car alarm button (column 1 lines 57-62). The caller unit is configured to: detect actuation of the emergency intercom button, immediately trigger a test operation of the elevator car based at least in part on the detection of the actuation of the emergency intercom button, receive an indication of whether the test operation completed successfully (status of the elevator’s function), and initiate a call to a remote call handler system in a service unit to output a report for service personnel to review (column 11 lines 55-63) for service or repair selectively based the received indication and whether its frequency exceeds a value allowed, or the button is pressed (column 11 lines 47-50, 54-60). A signal is sent to cause performance of the test operation, where the signal causes generation and output of a request signal by the car operating panel of the elevator car and move the car sequentially to another position and opening an elevator door (column 6 lines 30-35). The signal then is sent to a main elevator controller for moving the elevator car, as is recognized in the art. This reference fails to disclose the test operation to be triggered by instructing a test unit to perform the test operation, the test unit to have a processor, to be configured to send a signal to cause the performance of the test operation, and the test unit to be configured to be mounted to the elevator car.
However Fauconnet teaches an elevator car, where a test operation is triggered by instructing a test unit (detector 210) of landing door lock inspection system (200) to perform the test operation (column 5 lines 49-51). The test unit includes a processor in order to function properly, as is recognized in the art, and is configured to send a signal (light) to cause the performance of the test operation (column 8 lines 39-47). The test unit is further mounted to the elevator car (column 5 lines 49-51).
Given the teachings of Fauconnet, 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 caller unit disclosed in Ketoviita with providing the test operation to be triggered by instructing a test unit to perform the test operation, the test unit to be configured to send a signal to cause the performance of the test operation, and the test unit to be configured to be mounted to the elevator car. Doing so would allow “automated inspection of elevator landing door locks. The automation can be manually implemented and yet not require a technician to enter an elevator shaft” as taught in Fauconnet (column 12 lines 22-25).
Claim 55: Ketoviita modified by Fauconnet discloses a caller unit as stated above, wherein the test operation is disclosed in Ketoviita to include opening an elevator door of the elevator car (column 6 lines 30-35).
Claim 56: Ketoviita modified by Fauconnet discloses a caller unit as stated above, wherein the test operation is disclosed in Ketoviita to include movement of the elevator car to another level (position) (column 6 lines 30-35).
Claim 57: Ketoviita modified by Fauconnet discloses a caller unit as stated above, wherein the initiation of the call is disclosed in Ketoviita to be triggered when the test operation fails (column 11 lines 49-52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,112,801 B2 pertaining to a test unit within an elevator car.
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 August 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights