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 Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments received 08/19/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-7 as set forth above in this Office action.
Applicant argues that:
PNG
media_image1.png
351
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Koba mentions explicitly: “The elevator user requests a hall call by operating the operation unit of the hall call registration device 4 at the hall 2 where the elevator exists. The hall call registration device 4 of the hall 2 registers the hall call of the user by operating the operation unit. The control device 6 assigns the first car 3a to the hall call of the user. In addition, there is also a method of inputting a destination floor at the landing as a means for registering the user's landing. The control device 6 causes the first car 3a to travel to the floor corresponding to the hall call. When the first car 3a arrives at the floor corresponding to the hall call, the user gets into the first car 3a. Thereafter, the user requests a destination call by operating the operation unit of the first destination call registration device 5a. The first destination call registration device 5a registers the destination call of the user by operating the operation unit. The control device 6 causes the first car 3a to travel to the floor corresponding to the destination call.” (para. 0016-0017). Therefore, by inherency, Koba’s hoistway (1) must be structured such that not only the lower cab (3b) but also the upper cab (3a) can reach the bottom floor (Floor 1 in Fig. 1).
Koba further teaches explicitly: “In addition, when the current time is within a time period in which the robot 7 has priority, no car is assigned to a hall call from a user. Therefore, during times such as late at night when there are no users, it is possible to move many robots 7 using the first cage 3a and the second cage 3b” (para. 0047). That is, within a specific time zone in which the robot 7 is prioritized, such as midnight, the robot cab (3b) is configured for exclusive use of autonomous robots. Since the pending claims of the present application do not define any particular structure/environmental settings of the robot cab and/or physical mechanism through which the robot cab is configured for exclusive use of autonomous robots, with the BRI to the claims, Koba’s teaching in para. 0047 reads on the claim limitation: “the robot cab is configured for exclusive use of autonomous robots”.
Applicant’s argument in this regard is therefore unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koba et al. (WO 2018066049 A1, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Koba discloses an elevator car (combination of 3a/3b Fig. 1) comprising a passenger cab (3a) and a robot cab (3b), wherein: the robot cab (3b) is configured to accommodate at least one autonomous robot (7); wherein the robot cab comprises: a robot cab controller configured to receive elevator call requests from the at least one autonomous robot (para. 0018) and a coupling mechanism configured to couple the robot cab to the passenger cab (para. 0006, 0051); wherein the robot cab (3b) is separate from the passenger cab (Fig. 1) and the robot cab (3b) is configured for exclusive use of autonomous robots (para. 0047; note, the pending claims of the present application do not define any particular structure/configuration/environmental settings of the robot cab and/or physical mechanism through which the robot cab is configured for exclusive use of autonomous robots; as such, with the BRI to the claims, Koba’s teaching in para. 0047 reads on the limitation “the robot cab is configured for exclusive use of autonomous robots”).
Regarding claim 2, Koba discloses: wherein the robot cab is located above or below the passenger cab (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Koba discloses: wherein the robot cab comprises robot cab doors (para. 0048), and a robot door sill (para. 0048: “ … for the robot 7 to board or disembark”, by inherency, there must be a door sill through which the robot 7 can board or disembark).
Regarding claim 5, Koba discloses: wherein the robot cab comprises a robot guidance system configured to interact with the at least one autonomous robot (para. 0014-0015, 0018-0019, 0023).
Regarding claim 6, Koba discloses: wherein the robot cab comprises a data communications hub configured to be used by the at least one autonomous robot (para. 0014-0015, 0018-0019, 0023).
Regarding claim 9, Koba discloses an elevator system (Fig. 1) comprising: a hoistway (para. 0013), a plurality of landings with corresponding landing doors (para. 0011, 0048), the elevator car of claim 1, and an elevator controller (para. 0010, 0013); wherein the elevator controller is configured to operate the elevator car in response to elevator call requests from both passengers and the at least one autonomous robot (para. 0016-0018).
Regarding claim 10, Koba discloses: the elevator system of claim 9, comprising at least one guide rail (elevator shaft 1), and wherein the coupling mechanism comprises at least one guide rail connector configured to engage with a corresponding guide rail (para. 0011).
Regarding claim 11, Koba discloses: the elevator system of claim 9, comprising passenger cab doors and robot cab doors (para. 0048); wherein the robot cab doors and the passenger cab doors are provided on a first side of the elevator car (Fig. 1), and wherein the passenger cab doors are configured to remain closed when the robot cab doors are open (para. 0011, 0048).
Regarding claim 12, Koba discloses: the elevator system of claim 9, comprising passenger cab doors and robot cab doors (para. 0011, 0048); wherein the robot cab doors are provided on a first side (e.g., lower side) of the elevator car and the passenger cab doors are provided on a second side (e.g., upper side) of the elevator car (Fig. 1); and wherein the at least one landing (2 Fig. 1) comprises robot landing doors and passenger landing doors (para. 0011, 0048: by inherency, there must be robot landing doors and passenger landing doors at each landing floor through which the passenger and the robot can board or disembark), and wherein the robot cab doors are configured to engaged with and open the robot landing doors (para. 0011, 0048); and passenger cab doors are configured to engage with and open the passenger landing doors (para. 0011, 0048).
Regarding claim 13, Koba discloses: the elevator system of claim 9, comprising a passenger information system, configured to inform passengers of the activity of the robot cab (para. 0018, 0028, 0048-0049).
Regarding claim 14, Koba discloses: a method of controlling the elevator system according to claim 9, the method comprising the steps of: a) receiving passenger elevator call requests from one or more passengers; b) receiving a robot elevator call request from one or more autonomous robots; c) determining an elevator car journey plan in response to the received elevator call requests; d) operating the elevator car based on the determined elevator car journey plan (Abstract; para. 0016, 0018, 0028, 0048-0049, 0053-0058).
Regarding claim 15, Koba discloses: wherein step c) comprises one or more of the following: evaluating a robot action for the one or more autonomous robots, based on whether the robot elevator call request(s) relate(s) to one or more of: transport between landings, use of robot cab facilities and idle time; adapting the elevator car journey plan in accordance with the robot action(s) (para. 0016, 0018, 0028, 0048-0049, 0053-0058).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koba et al. in view of Urben et al. (US 9169105 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Koba is silent on: wherein the coupling mechanism comprises an adjustable coupling mechanism configured to adjust the vertical position of the robot cab with respect to the passenger cab.
Urben discloses an elevator car: comprising a first cab (12 Fig. 1) and a second cab (14); a coupling mechanism (24) configured to couple the second cab to the first cab, wherein the coupling mechanism comprises an adjustable coupling mechanism configured to adjust the vertical position of the second cab with respect to the first cab (col. 5, lines 48-58).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Urben’s teaching of the coupling mechanism into Koba to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would allow to make possible automatic adaptation of the spacing between the floor levels of the cars of a multi-deck vehicle to different floor spacings of a building (Urben, col. 3, lines 5-12).
7. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butera in view of Ichinose et al. (US 8958910 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Koba does not mention explicitly: wherein the robot cab comprises a waste disposal unit configured to be used by the at least one autonomous robot and/or a refill station configured to be used by the at least one autonomous robot.
Ichinose discloses an elevator system comprising a robot cab wherein the robot cab comprises a refill station configured to be used by the at least the robot (col. 16, lines 57-62).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ichinose’s teaching of the refill station into Koba for improvement in convenience (Ichinose, col. 16, lines 57-62).
Regarding claim 8, Koba does not mention explicitly: wherein the robot cab comprises a rotating floor section.
Ichinose discloses an elevator system comprising a robot cab wherein the robot cab comprises a rotating floor section (col. 16, lines 46-56; col. 17, line 57 – col. 18, line 4).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ichinose’s teaching of the rotating floor section into Koba for improvement in moving suppression (Ichinose, col. 2, lines 63-67).
Conclusion
8. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANCHUN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5981. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on (571)270-7938. 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.
/JIANCHUN QIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights