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 applicant’s amendment filed January 13, 2026. Claim 2 has been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1, 3-12, 38-40, 44-46 and 54-58 are pending with claims 38-40, 44-46 and 58 being previously withdrawn.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 and are addressed below.
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 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ketoviita (US 5,736,694).
Claim 1: Ketoviita discloses an elevator test unit for testing an operation of an elevator system, the test unit (interface) includes a first input (push button) configured to receive a command input (column 3 lines 36-39). The button is further described as a car alarm button (column 1 lines 57-62) in which a test operation in relation to an elevator car associated with the test unit is performed immediately after pressing the button, and a first output is configured, in response to receipt of the command input at the first input, to output a signal to cause the generation of a first level request signal to be sent to cause the test operation (column 11 lines 55-58). The command input then instructs the performance of the test operation. The test operation corresponds to moving the car (column 6 lines 30-35), and therefore the first level request signal is sent to a main elevator controller, as is recognized in the art. A second input is configured to receive an indication of whether the test operation occurred successfully (status of the elevator’s function); and a second output is configured to output a report as part of the alarm message for service personnel to review (column 11 lines 55-63) based on the received indication (column 11 lines 49-52). The test unit is configured to be mounted to the elevator car (column 3 lines 36-37).
Claim 3: Ketoviita discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, where the test unit is configured to be mounted to the elevator car (column 3 lines 36-37). Therefore the first output is communicatively coupled to a car operating panel of the elevator car and the signal is configured to cause generation of the first level request signal from the car operating panel (column 11 lines 55-63).
Claim 4: Ketoviita 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 further 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 discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, where the second output is 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 discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, where an operation determining sub-system is communicatively coupled to the second input to output the indication of whether the test operation occurred successful (column 11 lines 49-52, 55-63).
Claim 7: Ketoviita discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, where the operation determining sub-system determines whether the elevator car can be moved to another position, and an elevator car door can be opened (column 6 lines 30-35). Therefore the operation determining sub-system would include one or more of an acceleration sensor for detecting movement of the elevator car and a door switch for detecting an open state of the car door, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 8: Ketoviita 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 (column 6 lines 30-35).
Claim 9: Ketoviita discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, where the first output is configured 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 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 sent to the main elevator controller. The first output is configured 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 discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, where the test unit is configured 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 discloses an elevator test unit as stated above, where the test unit is configured 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).
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.
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 (interface) configured to be mounted
with respect to an elevator car, and configured to be communicatively coupled to an emergency intercom button (push button) 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; 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 to output a report for service personnel to review (column 11 lines 55-63) for service or repair selectively based on the received indication (column 11 lines 49-52). 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 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 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 7 of the response that “the car units of Ketoviita do not initiate any test operation, nor do they receive and report an indication of a successful test”. However applicant admits on page 8 that “there may be some test operations initiated when the emergency call button is pressed (this being one of the buttons of each car unit)” and that “the I/O unit (located outside of the elevator car) initiates a test operation (after performing time filtering) in response to the pressing of the emergency call button” (emphasis added). This is because the car interface—which corresponds to applicant’s claimed test unit—includes an alarm button, where “the function of the elevator is tested by test car call immediately after the alarm button is pressed” as shown in Ketoviita (column 11 lines 55-58). Applicant further states that the “car unit simply sends a signal to the I/O unit, which the I/O unit uses to determine whether to initiate a test operation”. According to applicant’s argument then, a test operation is able to be performed after the I/O unit receives a signal from the car unit. Although a time filtering process is used after receiving signal from the car unit in order to reduce false alarms, the I/O unit performs the test operation in response to receiving the signal from the car unit. Therefore the car unit initiates the steps to be performed for a test operation by sending the signal to the I/O unit. Ketoviita further describes that a status of the test operation corresponding to the elevator’s function is added to the alarm message so that personnel in a service unit can interpret the elevator status (column 11 lines 61-63), where the alarm is provided after the alarm button of the car unit is pressed (column 11 lines 55-61). Therefore the car unit is disclosed in Ketoviita to initiate a test operation and is able to receive and report an indication of whether the test occurred successfully, as required by applicant’s claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 March 7, 2026