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 November 4, 2025. Claims 6 and 15 have been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16-20 are pending with claims 4, 7, 9, 10, 16, 18 and 19 being previously withdrawn. An action on the merits is as follows.
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 § 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, 5, 11, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichinose et al. (US 2012/0041593 A1).
Claims 1 and 11: Ichinose et al. discloses a control system and method for elevator-waiting position of a robotic passenger, where the robotic passenger (autonomous mobile robot 20) does not get on an elevator (cage) if a first-choice position (riding area) is occupied (page 4 paragraph [0077]). The first-choice position is described as either an elevator-waiting position in an elevator car (page 4 paragraph [0067]) or an elevator-waiting position in an elevator-waiting hall outside of an elevator car (page 4 paragraph [0076]). Therefore a detection device detects whether a first-choice elevator-waiting position has been occupied. A position allocation unit is configured to: if the first-choice elevator-waiting position in an elevator-waiting hall outside of an elevator car is not occupied after a continuous available time, determine the first-choice elevator-waiting position as a target elevator-waiting position (riding position 107); and if the first-choice elevator-waiting position has been occupied, determine a candidate elevator-waiting position in the elevator-waiting hall outside of the elevator car as the target elevator-waiting position to change the area for the elevator-waiting position (page 4 paragraph [0074]). The control system for the elevator-waiting position of the robotic passenger is integrated in the elevator control system (page 5 paragraph [0087]). The control system for the elevator-waiting position of the robotic passenger further comprises a device that exposes (presents) the target elevator-waiting position using a distinguishable color (page 6 paragraph [0090]) either in an elevator car or in the elevator-waiting hall outside of the elevator car (page 4 paragraph [0076]).
Claim 5: Ichinose et al. discloses a control system as stated above, where the position allocation unit includes a memory in which a map is stored (page 3 paragraph [0057]). The map comprises a surrounding scene of at least one elevator-waiting hall, a first-choice elevator-waiting position (page 4 paragraph [0076]) and a candidate elevator-waiting position in the at least one elevator-waiting hall when the first-choice elevator-waiting position is to be adjusted (page 4 paragraph [0063]).
Claim 14: Ichinose et al. discloses a control method as stated above, where the robotic passenger is controlled to move to the target elevator-waiting position (page 4 paragraph [0079]).
Claim 17: Ichinose et al. discloses a control method as stated above, where the target elevator-waiting position is exposed using a projection lamp to project the target elevator-waiting position using an illumination tool (page 4 paragraph [0074]).
Claim 20: Ichinose et al. discloses a control method as stated above, where a
designated elevator is assigned based on elevator system information (determination that multiple cages are to almost simultaneously arrive at a floor) (pages 7-8 paragraph [0120]). The first-choice elevator-waiting position is determined corresponding to the designated elevator as the target elevator-waiting position (page 7 paragraph [0110]).
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.
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 2, 3, 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ichinose et al. (US 2012/0041593 A1).
Claims 2 and 12: Ichinose et al. discloses a control system and method where the position allocation unit is configured to issue a prompt if the first-choice elevator-waiting position has been occupied, as stated above. This reference fails to disclose the position allocation unit to further be configured to wait for a specific time if the first-choice elevator-waiting position has been occupied.
However Ichinose et al. further teaches that when the first-choice elevator-waiting position has been occupied, the position allocation unit waits for a specific time (predetermined m seconds) (page 7 paragraph [0109]).
Given the teachings of Ichinose 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 control system and method disclosed in Ichinose et al. with providing the position allocation unit to further be configured to wait for a specific time if the first-choice elevator-waiting position has been occupied. Doing so would allow time for a person to remove himself/herself from the first-choice elevator-waiting position “to avoid danger” as taught in Ichinose et al. (page 4 paragraph [0077]).
Claims 3 and 13: Ichinose et al. discloses a control system and method where a detection device is configured to detect whether a first-choice elevator-waiting position has been occupied; and if the first-choice elevator-waiting position is not occupied, the first-choice elevator-waiting position is determined as a target elevator-waiting position, as stated above. Upon detecting that the first-choice elevator-waiting position has been occupied, the specific time is waited, and the process is repeated when the time from the start of the first-choice elevator-waiting position detection is equal to or longer than the specific time (page 7 paragraph [0109]). After the specific time then, the detection device re-detects whether the first-choice elevator-waiting position has been occupied; if the first- choice elevator-waiting position is not occupied, the first-choice elevator-waiting position is determined as the target elevator-waiting position. If the first-choice elevator-waiting position is still occupied, a candidate elevator-waiting position (first-choice elevator-waiting position is adjusted) is determined as the target elevator-waiting position (page 4 paragraph [0063]).
Claim 8: Ichinose et al. discloses a control system as stated above. This reference fails to disclose the control system for elevator-waiting position of the robotic passenger to comprise a projection lamp form which the target elevator elevator-waiting position is projected.
However Ichinose et al. teaches an embodiment where the robotic passenger includes a projection lamp (illumination tool) from which the target elevator-waiting
position is projected (visually presented) (page 4 paragraph [0074]).
Given the teachings of Ichinose 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 control system disclosed in Ichinose et al. with providing the control system for elevator-waiting position of the robotic passenger to comprise a projection lamp form which the target elevator elevator-waiting position is projected. Doing so would allow a “user [to] grasp the moving range of the [robotic passenger] by the representation of the [target elevator-waiting position], [so] he/she does not enter the riding area to avoid danger” as taught in Ichinose et al. (page 4 paragraph [0077]).
Conclusion
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 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 February 3, 2026