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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments received 03/19/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 4-7 as set forth below in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, “2019 PEG”). The patent subject matter eligibility analysis is threefold. First, via step 1, determine that the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Second, via step 2A, identify that an abstract idea is claimed in prong one and if so, identify whether additional elements are recited that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in prong two. Finally, in step 2B, determine whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 1, applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process (method claims 1-20).
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
With respect to Step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites, with the abstract idea being highlighted in bold:
A method for monitoring brake dragging of an elevator, the method comprising the steps of:
(S1) calculating, by a controller, a motor torque estimate for an electric motor of the elevator in an elevator run;
(S2) determining, by a controller, a difference between the calculated motor torque estimate and a realized motor torque during the elevator run, and
(S3) generating, by a controller, a signal indicating possible brake dragging based on the difference between the motor torque estimate and the realized motor torque, wherein the signal indicating possible brake dragging is generated based on the magnitude of the difference between the motor torque estimate and the realized motor torque and based on the duration of said magnitude; and
(S4) stopping, by a controller, the elevator run by controlling a drive unit to stop the elevator at a nearest floor and take the elevator out of service in response to the signal.
The limitations highlighted in bold in claim 1 includes a mixture of two groupings of abstract ideas. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each or the combination of the limitations S1, S2 and S3 encompasses mental processes and mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, that can be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not spell out any particular mathematical equation or formula being used. The lack of specific equations/formula for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited in the bolded portion therefore amount to a series of mental and mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea, falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a controller” at a high level of generality, which reads on a generic computer processor. That is, other than reciting “by a controller” nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitations S1, S2 and S3 from practically being performed in the mind. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
The limitations not in bold are considered tangible elements that are not part of the abstract idea and need to be addressed in prong 2.
In summary, the highlighted/bolded steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
With respect to Step 2A, prong two, the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional element(s) in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
In claim 1 above, the additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font. The limitations considered additional elements claimed are: “method for monitoring brake dragging of an elevator” and “(S4) stopping, by a controller, the elevator run by controlling a drive unit to stop the elevator at a nearest floor and take the elevator out of service in response to the signal”. The additional elements in the preamble of the claim pertain as to the intended use in performing the abstract idea. In addition, using a general-purpose computer to perform computing activities via basic function of the computer, when it is claimed in a merely generic manner, is not considered to be significantly more than the abstract idea itself or to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, focusing on the extent to which (or how) an additional element imposes meaningful limits on the claim, it is considered that the limitation “(S4) …” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activities and/or a field of use limitation generally attached to the identified judicial exception. Under the BRI, “stopping, by a controller, the elevator run … in response to the signal” is analogous to Flook’s extra-solution activity of merely setting an alarm limit to its optimum. Id. (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584); see also 437 U.S. at 590 (“adjustment of the alarm limit . . . according to the [mathematical] formula” did not “transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process”). As to the limitation of implementing the “stopping”, the recited additional element “by controlling a drive unit to stop the elevator at a nearest floor and take the elevator out of service” is considered generally to link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use but not to provide the specificity required to transform the claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it. It has been held that an additional limitation in the claim integrates the exception into a practical application if it improves the functioning of a computer or improves the technology or technical field uses the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, transforms or reduces a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), and 2106.05(f).
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide variety of different practical applications in the general field-of-use.
With respect to Step 2B, the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations in this case are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In particular, each or the combination of the additional elements recited in the limitation “(S4) stopping, by a controller, the elevator run by controlling a drive unit to stop the elevator at a nearest floor and take the elevator out of service in response to the signal” is considered well-known/conventional techniques, which do not effect a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or reflect an inventive concept that is patentable.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 3-7, 11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20, when each is analyzed as a whole, are similarly held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, dependent claims 3-7, 11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20 inherit attributes of the claim 1 from which they depend, and do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The dependent claims either extend (narrow) the abstract idea or claim additional elements which do not amount for "significant more" because they are generically recited and/or conventional and well-understood in the art. The limitations of claims 3-11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20 merely add further details as to the type of data being received/input and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, and also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong 1.
Claims 8-10 are not eligible under 35 USC 101 for the same reason as for claims 1, 3-7, 11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20 set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanninen (US 20070000735 A1) in view of FURUHASHI (JP 2014227233 A, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hanninen discloses a method for monitoring brake dragging of an elevator (Abstract; Fig. 3; para. 0014) comprising a controller (114 in Fig. 1) and a drive unit (110), the method comprising the steps of: calculating, by the controller, a motor torque estimate (M2) for an electric motor of the elevator in an elevator run (para. 0031-0032: “The above-mentioned torque M2 can be calculated …”); determining, by the controller (114 Fig. 1), a difference (C) between the calculated motor torque estimate (M2) and a realized motor torque (M2’) during the elevator run (step 314 Fig. 3), and generating, by the controller (114 Fig. 1), a signal (step 316 Fig. 3) indicating possible brake dragging based on the difference between the motor torque estimate and the realized motor torque (para. 0034), wherein the signal indicating possible brake dragging is generated based on the magnitude of the difference between the motor torque estimate and the realized motor torque and based on the duration of said magnitude (para. 0034); initiating remedy actions, including taking the elevator out of service, in response to the signal (para. 0034: “in step 316 the elevator is disabled until the brake is correctly adjusted”).
Hanninen does not mention explicitly: wherein the signal indicating possible brake dragging is generated further based on the duration of said magnitude; wherein said remedy actions include stopping, by the controller, the elevator run by controlling the drive unit to stop the elevator at a nearest floor in response to the signal.
FURUHASHI discloses a method and system for monitoring brake dragging of an elevator (Abstract), comprising: generating a signal indicating possible brake dragging based on the magnitude of the difference between a motor torque estimate and a realized motor torque and based on the duration of said magnitude (para. 0031: “ … within the predetermined time”; see also discussion of step S4 in Fig. 5); and stopping the elevator run by controlling a drive unit of the elevator to stop the elevator at a nearest floor and taking the elevator out of service in response to the signal (para. 0032).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FURUHASHI’s teaching of counting the duration of said magnitude into Hanninen to generate said signal indicating possible brake dragging. Doing so would obviously make said signal indicating possible brake dragging to be generated more robustly (FURUHASHI, para. 0035). In view of FURUHASHI, it would have also been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FURUHASHI’s teaching of remedy actions, in response to the signal indicating possible brake dragging, into Hanninen to arrive the claimed invention. It is deemed that the skilled person in the art would conceive and apply such modification without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances.
Regarding claim 3, Hanninen discloses: wherein the signal indicating possible brake dragging is generated when the difference between the motor torque estimate and the realized motor torque meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold for a predetermined time period (para. 0033-0034).
Regarding claim 4, Hanninen discloses: wherein the signal indicating possible brake dragging is generated when the difference between the motor torque estimate and the realized motor torque meets or exceeds a first predetermined threshold for a first predetermined time period (para. 0033-0034).
Regarding claim 5, Hanninen discloses: wherein the motor torque estimate is calculated based on all or of any combination of the following criteria: rated load, output of a load weighing device, position of dependent masses, total moving masses (para. 0009, 0013, 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 6, Hanninen discloses: wherein the realized motor torque is the output of the speed control in a speed control circuit (para. 0034: under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the torque M2' required to set the elevator car in motion reads on the claimed “output of the speed control in a speed control circuit”).
Regarding claim 7, Hanninen discloses: wherein the signal indicating possible brake dragging based on the difference between the motor torque estimate and the realized motor torque is transmitted to a remote service centre (para. 0014: “ … a notice is sent to the maintenance center”; see also para. 0017).
Regarding claim 8, Hanninen discloses a brake monitoring apparatus, comprising: a drive unit (110 Fig. 1) configured to drive an elevator car (102 Fig. 1); and a controller (114 Fig. 1) comprising an elevator speed control circuit (para. 0003), wherein the controller is configured to perform the method according to claim1 (para. 0030-0031; see also discussion for claim 1 above), and wherein the brake monitoring apparatus further comprises a signal generator configured to generate a signal indicating possible brake dragging (para. 0034).
Regarding claim 9, Hanninen discloses: an elevator comprising the brake monitoring apparatus according to claim 8 (see Fig. 1 and related text).
Regarding claim 10, Hanninen is silent on: wherein the elevator comprises a remote communication link to a remote service centre.
Examiner takes official notice that an elevator comprising a remote communication link to a remote service centre is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanninen to incorporate such a well-known feature in order to provide an easy-to-use mechanism to the elevator. The mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Hanninen discloses: wherein the elevator comprises a control system (114) having a storage memory (para. 0031).
Hanninen is silent on: a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising program instructions, which, when run on a computer, causes the computer to perform the method as claimed in claim 1.
Examiner takes official notice that an elevator comprising a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising program instructions, which, when run on a computer, causes the computer to control the operation of the elevator is well-known in the art. Since Hanninen teaches the general condition of the control system for testing the condition of the brakes of the elevator (Abstract; Figs. 2 and 3), it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hanninen to incorporate a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising program instructions, which when run on a computer of the control system, causes the computer to perform the method as claimed in claim 1. The mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 13-14, Hanninen discloses: wherein the motor torque estimate is calculated based on all or of any combination of the following criteria: the rated load, the output of the load weighing device, the position of the dependent masses, the total moving masses (para. 0009, 0013, 0031-0032).
Regarding claims 16-18, Hanninen discloses the claimed invention (see discussion for claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 20, Hanninen discloses the claimed invention (see discussion for claim 7 above).
Contact Information
8. 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