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 July 2, 2026. Claims 16-19, 21-31 and 33 are pending and 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 § 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 16-19, 21-24 and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al. (US 10,676,314 B2) in view of Garfinkel et al. (US 10,046,948 B2).
Claims 16 and 31: Van Dijk et al. discloses a method for controlling an elevator group having a plurality of elevators on the basis of destination calls sent by users to the elevator group, comprising receiving a user generated destination call via destination operating panel (10) that contains at least information regarding a destination floor to which the user should be transported (column 4 lines 55-56), and a waiting floor on which a user sending the destination call is waiting (column 5 lines 49-52). Based on the season and/or a time of day, the elevator group is operated in a second operating mode (column 4 lines 38-42). In the second operating mode, a delay time period (prolonged time) is required for every received destination call before allocating an elevator to a destination call (column 3 lines 23-30). A minimum traveling time required for a selected elevator to reach the waiting floor in the destination call information is calculated, and displayed on a common information panel as an expected arrival time, as shown in Fig. 1 (column 5 lines 1-3). In response to receiving the destination call, a duration of the delay time period is chosen in dependence/based on the calculated minimum traveling time of the selected elevator to reach the waiting floor so that an elevator is allocated within a few seconds before the elevator arrives at the landing, and the delay time period is waited to expire before assigning one of the elevators of the elevator group as a service elevator after the delay time period has expired (column 3 lines 23-32). The service elevator is then controlled to pick up the user via arriving at the waiting floor (column 2 lines 16-19), and transport the user to the destination floor as is recognized in the art. The service elevator is further assigned with consideration of information contained in destination calls that are received during the delay time period (column 5 lines 49-55). This reference fails to disclose the selected elevator to be a most suitable one of the elevators that is either located closest to the waiting floor when the destination call is received or requires a least modification of a previously planned travel schedule in comparison with other elevators of the elevator group in order to travel to the waiting floor.
However Garfinkel et al. teaches a method for controlling an elevator group having a plurality of elevators, where a most suitable one (first elevator 103) of a plurality of elevators that is located closest to a waiting floor (user’s floor) when a call (elevator request) is received is selected for initial assignment (column 6 lines 30-44).
Given the teachings of Garfinkel 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 disclosed in Van Dijk et al. with providing the selected elevator to be a most suitable one of the elevators that is located closest to the waiting floor when the destination call is received to be selected for initial assignment. Doing so would simplify computation and processing for elevator assignment by initially assigning a most convenient elevator for a user, and only changing the initial assignment if another elevator is found that is more convenient for a user, as taught in Garfinkel et al. (column 5 line 66 through column 6 line 8).
Claim 17: Van Dijk et al. modified by Garfinkel et al. discloses a method as stated above, where one of the elevators of the elevator group is assigned as the service elevator based on whether it optimizes a waiting time for users of the elevator group (arrives at the user’s location first), as shown in Garfinkel et al. (column 5 lines 11-15).
Claim 18: Van Dijk et al. modified by Garfinkel et al. discloses a method as stated above, where a duration of the delay time period is disclosed in Van Dijk et al. to be longer than a calculation time required for calculating the assignment of the service elevator (column 5 lines 49-55).
Claim 19: Van Dijk et al. modified by Garfinkel et al. discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose a duration of the delay time period to be longer than 2 seconds.
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 a duration of the delay time period to be longer than 2 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 “give the control unit additional time to consider time after the issuing of the [destination] call to find and/or allocate the best suited elevator to serve the [destination] call” as shown in Van Dijk et al. (column 5 lines 52-55).
Claim 21: Van Dijk et al. modified by Garfinkel et al. discloses a method as stated above, where the duration of the delay time period is disclosed in Van Dijk et al. to be chosen to provide a sufficient residual duration of the minimum traveling time to enable the user to reach an elevator door of the assigned service elevator after an expiration of the delay time period (column 2 lines 10-19).
Claim 22: Van Dijk et al. modified by Garfinkel et al. discloses a method as stated above, where Van Dijk et al. discloses the user to be informed of an identity of the assigned service elevator via a common information panel after an expiration of the delay time period (column 2 lines 1-9).
Claim 23: Van Dijk et al. modified by Garfinkel et al. discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose the identity of the assigned service elevator to be transmitted to a personal mobile data processing device of the user, and the data processing device to be adapted to inform the user of the identity of the assigned service elevator.
However Garfinkel et al. teaches a method for controlling an elevator group, where an identity of an assigned service elevator is transmitted to a personal mobile data processing device (cell phone) of a user (column 7 lines 6-8). The data processing device then would be adapted to inform the user of the identity of the assigned service elevator, as is recognized in the art.
Given the teachings of Garfinkel 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 disclosed in Van Dijk et al. with providing the identity of the assigned service elevator to be transmitted to a personal mobile data processing device of the user, and the data processing device to be adapted to inform the user of the identity of the assigned service elevator. Doing so would prevent the need for the user to locate and move within visual range of the common information panel in order to see the identity of the assigned elevator.
Claim 24: Van Dijk et al. modified by Garfinkel et al. discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose the destination call to be generated and sent with a personal mobile data processing device of the user.
However Garfinkel et al. teaches a method for controlling an elevator group, where a destination call is generated and sent with a portable communication device (106) (column 2 line 66 through column 3 line 2). The portable communication device is further described as a personal mobile data processing device (cellular phone) of the user (column 3 lines 29-31).
Given the teachings of Garfinkel 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 disclosed in Van Dijk et al. with providing the destination call to be generated and sent with a personal mobile data processing device of the user. Doing so would allow interaction from the user via “a device that the user can readily carry while in transit … [and] can operate from any location with range of a connected wireless network, and which the user can operate while moving” as taught in Garfinkel et al. (column 3 lines 29-35).
Claim 26: Van Dijk et al. modified by Garfinkel et al. discloses a method as stated above, where an elevator controller is disclosed in Van Dijk et al. to control an elevator group having a plurality of elevators, and performs said method (column 6 lines 24-26).
Claim 27: Van Dijk et al. modified by Garfinkel et al. discloses a method as stated above, where an elevator group is disclosed in Van Dijk et al. to include a plurality of elevators, and an elevator controller to control the elevators (column 6 lines 23-26).
Claims 28-30: Van Dijk et al. modified by Garfinkel et al. discloses a method as stated above, where a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium in a storage unit and retrieved from the storage unit by a programmable elevator controller via a network contains machine-readable instructions, and the programmable elevator controller executes the instructions which are in executable form and stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium to prompt the programmable elevator controller to perform said method, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al. (US 10,676,314 B2) modified by Garfinkel et al. (US 10,046,948 B2) as applied to claims above, further in view of Zaharia et al. (US 2006/0065491 A1).
Claim 25: Van Dijk et al. modified by Garfinkel et al. discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose a personal mobile data processing device of the user to be configured for carrying out at least one of: confirming a receipt of the destination call by outputting a signal via the data processing device; informing the user of a remaining waiting time until the service elevator arrives on the waiting floor by outputting a signal via the data processing device; and informing the user of an assigned waiting area for waiting until the service elevator arrives on the waiting floor by outputting a signal via the data processing device.
However Garfinkel et al. teaches a method for controlling an elevator group, where a portable communication device (106) is configured to carry out actions a (column 2 line 66 through column 3 line 2). The portable communication device is further described as a personal mobile data processing device (cellular phone) of the user (column 3 lines 29-31).
Given the teachings of Garfinkel 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 disclosed in Van Dijk et al. with providing the destination call to be generated and sent with a personal mobile data processing device of the user. Doing so would allow interaction from the user via “a device that the user can readily carry while in transit … [and] can operate from any location with range of a connected wireless network, and which the user can operate while moving” as taught in Garfinkel et al. (column 3 lines 29-35). These references fail to disclose the personal mobile data processing device to be configured for carrying out at least one of: confirming a receipt of the destination call by outputting a signal via the data processing device; informing the user of a remaining waiting time until the service elevator arrives on the waiting floor by outputting a signal via the data processing device; and informing the user of an assigned waiting area for waiting until the service elevator arrives on the waiting floor by outputting a signal via the data processing device.
However Zaharia et al. teaches a method for controlling an elevator group, where a communication device is configured to inform a user of an assigned waiting area corresponding to an elevator group for waiting until a service elevator arrives on a waiting floor by outputting a signal via a data processing device (page 1 paragraph [0009]).
Given the teachings of Zaharia 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 disclosed in Van Dijk et al. as modified by Garfinkel et al. with providing the action to include informing the user of a remaining waiting time until the service elevator arrives on the waiting floor by outputting a signal via the data processing device; and informing the user of an assigned waiting area for waiting until the service elevator arrives on the waiting floor by outputting a signal via the data processing device. Doing so would “allow an individual to place a destination request well in advance of arriving in the vicinity of the actual elevator car that will carry them to their intended destination” as taught in Zaharia et al. (page 1 paragraph [0010]).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al. (US 10,676,314 B2) in view of Garfinkel et al. (US 10,046,948 B2), further in view of Wedzikowski et al. (US 11,926,504 B2).
Claim 33: Van Dijk et al. discloses a method for controlling an elevator group having a plurality of elevators on the basis of destination calls sent by users to the elevator group, comprising generating a destination call from a user via destination operating panel (10) that contains information regarding a destination floor to which the user should be transported (column 4 lines 55-56), and a waiting floor on which a user sending the destination call is waiting (column 5 lines 49-52). Based on the season and/or a time of day, the elevator group is operated in a second operating mode (column 4 lines 38-42). In the second operating mode, a delay time period (prolonged time) is required for every received destination call before allocating an elevator to a destination call (column 3 lines 23-30). A minimum traveling time required for a selected elevator to reach the waiting floor is calculated and displayed on a common information panel as an expected arrival time, as shown in Fig. 1 (column 5 lines 1-3). The delay time period is waited after reception of the destination call before assigning one of the elevators to the user as a service elevator, a duration of which is selected based on a traveling time, displayed on a common information panel as an expected arrival time as shown in Fig. 1 (column 5 lines 1-3), of the selected elevator to reach the waiting floor so that an elevator is allocated within a few seconds before the elevator arrives at the landing after the delay time period has expired (column 3 lines 23-32). The service elevator is then controlled to pick up the user via arriving at the waiting floor (column 2 lines 16-19), and transport the user to the destination floor as is recognized in the art. The service elevator is further assigned with consideration of information contained in destination calls that are received during the delay time period (column 5 lines 49-55). This reference fails to disclose the destination call to be generated from a user’s mobile deice, the destination call to be received by near-field communication between the mobile device and a destination call terminal at the waiting floor, selecting a most suitable one of the elevators of the elevator group as a service elevator in response to receiving the destination call, and a and the selected elevator to be a most suitable one of the elevators to be selected that is either located closest to the waiting floor when the destination call is received or requires a least modification of a previously planned travel schedule in comparison with other elevators of the elevator group in order to travel to the waiting floor. This reference further fails to disclose the mobile device to receive the waiting floor information from the user or from the destination call terminal.
However Garfinkel et al. teaches a method for controlling an elevator group having a plurality of elevators, where a destination call is generated via a user entering a destination into a portable communications device (106) and the destination call is received (column 3 lines 56-66). The portable communications device is described as a user’s mobile device (mobile communication device 106) (column 5 lines 32-33). The destination call is received by near-field communication (short-range wireless communication system) between the mobile device and a destination call terminal (local computer 108) at the waiting floor (column 4 lines 31-35). A most suitable one (first elevator 103) of a plurality of elevators that is located closest to a waiting floor (user’s floor) when a call (elevator request) is received is selected for initial assignment (column 6 lines 30-44).
Given the teachings of Garfinkel 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 disclosed in Van Dijk et al. with providing the destination call to be generated from a user’s mobile deice, the destination call to be received by near-field communication between the mobile device and a destination call terminal at the waiting floor, selecting a most suitable one of the elevators of the elevator group as a service elevator in response to receiving the destination call, and a and the selected elevator to be a most suitable one of the elevators to be selected that is either located closest to the waiting floor when the destination call is received or requires a least modification of a previously planned travel schedule in comparison with other elevators of the elevator group in order to travel to the waiting floor. Doing so would allow interaction from the user via “a device that the user can readily carry while in transit … [and] can operate from any location with range of a connected wireless network, and which the user can operate while moving” as taught in Garfinkel et al. (column 3 lines 29-35), and would further simplify computation and processing for elevator assignment by initially assigning a most convenient elevator for a user, and only changing the initial assignment if another elevator is found that is more convenient for a user, as taught in Garfinkel et al. (column 5 line 66 through column 6 line 8). These references fail to disclose the mobile device to receive the waiting floor information from the user or from the destination call terminal.
However Wedzikowski et al. teaches a method for controlling an elevator group, where an elevator call (preset elevator call) is user generated (set) (column 5 lines 58-59) and includes programmed conditions corresponding to a destination floor to which a user should be transported (column 1 lines 49-51) and therefore is considered a destination call. The destination call contains information regarding a starting floor (column 2 lines 60-63), and upon detecting a triggering condition such as a shake or tap on a mobile device (column 2 lines 51-55) after a user arrives near an elevator lobby, the destination call is retrieved and received by an elevator system (column 14 lines 9-13). The destination call then is received after the user arrives near an elevator lobby. The starting floor contained in the destination call then is a waiting floor on which a user sending the destination call is waiting, and is received (set) from the user (column 5 lines 58-59).
Given the teachings of Wedzikowski 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 disclosed in Van Dijk et al. as modified by Garfinkel et al. with providing the mobile device to receive the waiting floor information from the user or from the destination call terminal. Doing so would “provide a convenient method of call entry for users with their hands full as well” as taught in Wedzikowski et al. (column 14 lines 13-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 18 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 9 of the response that “Van Dijk does not require a delay time period for every received destination call”. However Van Dijk et al. discloses that depending on a season and/or time of day, a second operating mode is performed (column 4 lines 38-41). Therefore the elevator group is not switched between a first and second operating mode continually, but remains in the second operating mode and continually operates in said second operating mode in accordance with the season and/or time of day. When operating in the second operating mode, “the elevator is allocated to a landing call, preferably in a certain time span, before the arrival of the allocated elevator to the landing from where the landing call has been issued” (column 3 lines 23-27). During such continual operation then, every destination call received would have a delay time period before assigning an elevator car. Van Dijk et al. properly discloses that during continual operation of the second operating mode, the delay time period is observed for every received destination call, as required by the claims.
Applicant further states on page 10 that the “certain time span” disclosed in Van Dijk et al. corresponds to “fixed ranges selected by the system designer; they are not calculated in dependence on any elevator’s minimum traveling time”. However applicant’s claimed delay time period is not equivalent to the “certain time span” described in Van Dijk et al. The “certain time span” disclosed in Van Dijk et al. is an amount of time before the arrival of an elevator at a landing from where the destination call was issued (column 3 lines 23-37), while applicant’s claimed delay time period is an amount of time waited after receiving the destination call before assigning an elevator car to the destination call. Applicant’s claimed delay time period corresponds to the prolonged time described in Van Dijk et al. required for finding an elevator car (column 3 lines 28-30). In the figure below, Box A represents a time at which a destination call is received and Box C represents a time at which an elevator car arrives at the landing from which the destination call was made. The shaded region between Box B and Box C represents the “certain time span” described in Van Dijk et al., while the unshaded region between Box A and Box B represents applicant’s claimed delay time period. As shown in the figure below, applicant’s claimed delay time period is not the same as the “certain time span” described in Van Dijk et al. In order for the “certain time span” to
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (C)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Time (seconds))]
remain consistent for all calls, an amount of delay time period waited before assigning an elevator car (region between Box A and Box B) would vary based on how far away the elevator is from the landing when the destination call is received. An elevator positioned farther away from a landing would require more time to arrive at the landing than an elevator positioned closer to the landing traveling at the same speed. The delay time period then would be chosen in dependence on a calculated travel time needed for the elevator to arrive at the landing based on its distance away from the landing in order for the assignment to take place a “certain time span” (region between Box B and Box C) before arriving at the landing. Therefore Van Dijk et al. properly discloses applicant’s delay time period as required by the claims.
Additionally, applicant states that “even if one were to interpret Van Dijk’s system as having a variable delay period from call receipt to allocation, this is fundamentally different from what is claimed”. However the claims are directed to a method, which includes the steps “requiring a delay time period for every received destination call …waiting for the delay time period to expire; assigning one of the elevators of the elevator group as a service elevator after the delay time period has expired”. According to the claims then, a delay time period is observed from call receipt to allocation. Therefore Van Dijk et al. properly discloses applicant’s limitation as required by the claims.
Applicant also states that “Van Dijk never calculates a delay time period or chooses its duration”. However Van Dijk et al. discloses that an information panel (20) includes several columns for displaying information, including a fourth column which displays an expected arrival time of an elevator (column 4 lines 59-65). In order for an expected arrival time of an elevator to be known, a time required for the elevator to travel from a current location to a target landing would be calculated (represented as the region between Box A and Box C in the figure above), as is recognized in the art. Knowing a time required for the elevator to travel to the target landing also ensures that allocation is performed at the “certain time span” before the elevator arrives at the landing by prolonging the time for finding an elevator, as described in Van Dijk et al. (column 3 lines 23-30). Without knowing the time required for the elevator to travel to the target landing, there would be no way to know when the elevator is the “certain time span” away from the landing. Since the “certain time span” (region between Box B and Box C) is predetermined, a prolonged time for finding an elevator (represented as the region between Box A and Box B) would be calculated/chosen according to the difference between the total travel time and the “certain time span”. It has been held that “the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by . . . overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. . . . . In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends”.KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Therefore applicant’s claimed limitation corresponding to a calculated/chosen delay time period is properly rejected over Van Dijk et al.
On page 11, applicant states that “Van Dijk does not select a most suitable elevator before calculating a delay” and “Garfinkel does not teach calculating that selected elevator’s minimum traveling time and then using that calculation to determine a delay period duration". However the secondary reference to Garfinkel et al. was relied on to teach a most suitable elevator being selected. The primary reference to Van Dijk et al. was shown above to disclose an elevator’s minimum traveling time to be calculated and used to determine a delay period duration. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of Van Dijk et al. modified by the teachings of Garfinkel et al. then properly render obvious applicant’s limitations as required by the 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 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights