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 June 8, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 4, 11-13 and 18-20 being previously withdrawn. An action on the merits is as follows.
Objection to claim 16 has been withdrawn.
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 § 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 1-3, 5-10, 14 and 15 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “the learning procedure performed by the controller of the in-car display comprises: gathering floor information for all floors of the elevator system”. However applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not properly describe the in-car display to gather floor information for all floors. The term “gather” is understood to mean “to bring together: collect” as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Although the specification describes “a learning system to be implemented in an in-car display”, the configurations or configuration changes are learned via communication with an elevator control system (applicant’s published specification page 2 paragraph [0020]). The specification further describes that floor information of all floors are gathered from an elevator control system (applicant’s published specification page 2 paragraph [0025]), and the floor information gathered by the elevator control system is provided to the in-car display (applicant’s published specification page 3 paragraph [0031]). Therefore the floor information for all floors is not shown to be “gathered” by the in-car display, but instead the elevator control system. It is unclear how an elevator in-car display would gather such information, e.g. from a previously stored table, as the elevator passes each floor, etc., and what structure would be included in the in-car display to provide such function. Therefore this limitation is considered new matter.
Claims 2, 3, 5-10, 14 and 15 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims then also include the limitation considered as new matter.
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 1-3, 5-10, 14 and 15 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 1 includes the limitation “the learning procedure performed by the controller of the in-car display comprises: gathering floor information for all floors of the elevator system”. However applicant’s disclosure does not properly describe how the in-car display gathers floor information for all floors. The term “gather” is understood to mean “to bring together: collect” as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary. It is unclear how applicant’s elevator in-car display would gather information for all floors, e.g. from a previously stored table, as the elevator passes each floor, etc., and what structure would be included in the in-car display to provide such function.
Claims 2, 3, 5-10, 14 and 15 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims do not correct the deficiencies of claim 1.
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 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pineau et al. (US 8,688,664 B2) in view of Kattainen et al. (US 11,897,729 B2).
Claim 16: Pineau et al. discloses a system for configuring a display of an elevator system based on a learning procedure for a display unit (114a-b,134a-c) (column 3 lines 59-67), where the display unit includes an in-car display for an elevator car of the elevator system (column 2 lines 40-44). The in-car display includes a controller for controlling displayed information and communications with components of the elevator system, as is recognized in the art. An in-car display for an elevator is shown in FIG. 3 be configured with a floor label in a position indicator area (302) which corresponds to floor labels (floor names) for each floor that is accessible to the elevator system (column 4 lines 3-8). The in-car display is further shown to display a destination floor to which the elevator car is traveling. A learning mode is implemented to retrieve current floor label information (updated information) during an update to the elevator system in order to provide the current floor label information and updated information for display by the in-car display (column 3 lines 43-46, 56-67). An elevator control system provides the current floor label information to the controller of the in-car display, wherein the current floor information is the floor label for each floor (column 4 lines 3-8). The learning procedure then is at least in part performed by the controller of the in-car display. The elevator control system would be connected to the in-car display via a serial connection in order to properly provide communications between the elevator control system and the in-car display, as is recognized in the art. This reference fails to disclose the in-car display to indicate a learning mode.
However Kattainen et al. teaches a system, where an in-car display (car operating panel) indicates when the system is in a different mode (service mode) (column 4 lines 16-19).
Given the teachings of Kattainen 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 Pineau et al. with providing the in-car display to indicate a learning mode. Doing so would notify potential passengers that the elevator car is “not available for passenger transport” as taught in Kattainen et al. (column 4 lines 16-20).
Claim 17: Pineau et al. modified by Kattainen et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the elevator control system is disclosed in Pineau et al. to receive and fulfill requests to update the floor labels from a location that is remote to the elevator system (column 1 lines 46-48).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims1-3, 5-10, 14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1: Although the prior art (US 8,688,664 B2) teaches a method for configuring a display unit (114a-b,134a-c) (column 3 lines 59-67), where the display unit includes an in-car display of an elevator system (column 2 lines 40-44) and the in-car display includes a controller for controlling displayed information and communications with components of the elevator system, as is recognized in the art, where information corresponding to a request is received via a property server that is required to initiate a learning procedure of the in-car display (column 1 lines 56-61), and the learning procedure retrieves data from an elevator control of the elevator system (column 4 lines 4-8), and is started so as to update a configuration of the in-car display by gathering floor information for all floors of the elevator system along with any updated information and generating the configuration of the in-car display based on the floor information that has been gathered for displaying the updated information (column 3 lines 43-46, 56-67) such that the floor information is a floor label (floor name) for each floor (column 4 lines 3-6), the prior art does not teach nor suggest the in-car display to perform the learning procedure including gathering of floor information for all floors of the elevator system, where the term “gathering” is understood to mean “to bring together: collect” as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary. The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate nor make obvious applicant's claimed invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5-10, 14 and 15 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit all allowed claim limitations.
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 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights