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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the limitation “…the accent the speech tempo…”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “…the accent, the speech tempo…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the limitation “processor”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “the processor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 11, 14-15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn et al. (US 2018/0090138 A1) in view of Simcik (WO 2017/112659 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Finn discloses a method of operating and an elevator system interface (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0034]), comprising:
a voice-activated input that is configured to receive audible input from a user (e.g. Fig. 1: 120 & [0035]);
a processor (e.g. Fig. 1: 130 & [0035-0036]) that is configured to determine a response to the audible input based on
a content of the audible input (e.g. [0034-0035]: location value; [0064, 0066]: user specific language, accent or vocabulary),
a characteristic (e.g. [0034-0036]: location value indicates direction and origination floor, and request includes destination floor) of a passenger request included in the audible input (e.g. Fig. 1: 120 & [0035]), wherein the characteristic is selected from a direction of travel, an origination floor, and an intended destination; and
an output that is configured to provide at least an audible indication of the determined response (e.g. [0069]: feedback).
Finn fails to disclose, but Simcik teaches a type of authorization of the user (e.g. [0066, 0067]: profile of user with information, e.g. VIP user, maybe used to fulfill a request and reservation of an elevator car), wherein the type of authorization [0037, 0052, 0021, 0059, 0067, 0078]) includes at least an elevator system specialist (e.g. [0081]: maintenance, security, cleaning), a building manager (e.g. [0081]: management), and a priority passenger (e.g. [0037, 0052, 0021, 0059, 0067, 0078]: VIP),
wherein the determined response includes providing each identified type of authorization with access to at least one secured feature of an elevator system that is unique to each type of authorization (e.g. [0066, 0067, 0078, 0081]: customized or tailored services that allow VIP user, maintenance and management staff to have upgraded services; customized or tailored service implies service unique to a specific user).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Finn with the teachings of Simcik to validate authorization of user request for an elevator so as to provide enhance privacy and ease of movement for VIP user (e.g. [0059]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Finn discloses the processor further determines a language of the audible input (e.g. [0064, 0066]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Finn discloses the processor further determines a time or an event on a predetermined schedule (e.g. [0047]: delay request, i.e. schedule).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Finn discloses the processor further determines a characteristic of the user; and the characteristic of the user is selected from a voice signature (e.g. [0066]: as the user moves from location to location, user specific speed characteristics stay associate with the user), a biometric feature of the user, an item carried by the user, and an item worn by the user.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Finn and Simcik in combination discloses:
when the type of authorization is the elevator system specialist, the at least one secured feature includes at least one of an elevator system function, information regarding performance of at least one portion of the elevator system, maintenance information, and control over at least one portion of the elevator system (e.g. Simcik: [0059, 0066, 0067, 0078, 0081]: customized or tailored services for maintenance staff would be obvious to include access of the elevator system function, information of the elevator system, maintenance information and control so as to perform maintenance service of the elevator);
when the type of authorization is the building manager, the at least one secured feature includes at least one of predetermined floor access, service information and customization options (e.g. Simcik: [0059, 0066, 0067, 0078, 0081]: customized or tailored services include particular floor access and customization options; and, it would be obvious to tailor service for manager to include access of service information of the elevator since manager should be able to have access to all control of the elevator); and
when the type of authorization is the priority passenger, the at least one secured feature includes at least one of priority elevator car assignment, predetermined floor access, a comfort feature, and an entertainment feature (e.g. Simcik: [0021, 0059, 0066, 0067, 0078, 0081]: customized or tailored services for VIP includes reservation of an elevator car, predetermined floor access; comfort feature is broadly considered as privacy and ease of movement; entertainment feature is broadly considered as announcement of arrival of VIP-elevator car).
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn et al. (US 2018/0090138 A1) in view of Simcik (WO 2017/112659 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Jayachandran (US 2009/0290726 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Finn discloses the processor is configured to determine at least one characteristic of the audible input that is selected from a language, an accent (e.g. [0064, 0066]), a speech tempo, and a volume.
Finn fails to disclose, but Jayachandran teaches the audible indication provides the output with the same determined audible characteristic (e.g. [0005]: adjust output volume based on sensed volume).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Finn with the teachings of Jayachandran to adjust volume of audio output indication based on sensed ambient sound (i.e. including the sensed volume of the user) so as to ensure user hearing the audio output indication clearly and comfortably.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn et al. (US 2018/0090138 A1) in view of Simcik (WO 2017/112659 A1) and Jayachandran (US 2009/0290726 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Palaniswami (US 11,190,851 B1).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Finn discloses the processor is configured to determine multiple characteristics of the audible input including the language, the accent (e.g. [0064]), the speech tempo, and the volume. Jayachandran further teaches it is known to provide audio output based on sensed characteristic of the sensed input (e.g. [0005]: adjust output volume based on sensed input volume).
Finn and Jayachandran in combination fails to disclose, but Palaniswami teaches it is known to output audio indication based on sensed language (e.g. col 12 lines 1-16).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Simcik and Jayachandran with the teachings of Palaniswami to output audio indication based on language of the sensed audio input. Since both the volume adjustment and language conversion are known in the art. Outputting audio indication with both volume adjustment and language conversion would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since it is merely utilizing different known method into one application based on routine skill in the art. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument with regard to Simcik, Simcik teaches customized or tailored services that allow VIP user, maintenance and management staff to have upgraded services that are unique to each type of user (e.g. [0066, 0067, 0078, 0081]; customized or tailored service implies service unique to a specific user).
In response to applicant’s argument with regard to claims 9 and 19, rejections have bee updated in view of amendments.
Thus, claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19 and 21-22 are unpatentable in view of foregoing reasons and rejections set forth in current Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846