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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 13-23 recite acquiring, determining and detecting data and elements. These limitations of acquiring, determining and detecting, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and includes no recitation of computer/processing components, or a tangible functional output. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, even if the claim were to recite an additional element such as – using a processor to perform the above steps, the processor would be recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of an element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent Application publication to Toutaoui (US 2017/0349398).
In terms of claim 13, Toutaoui teaches a method for detecting a malfunction in an observed elevator (1), the method comprising the steps of: acquiring first data (based on sensors (22, 24, 26, 28)) during an application phase (see paragraphs [0016] and [0033]), the first data correlating with at least one condition in the observed elevator (1); acquiring further data during the application phase (with the help of a diagnostic unit (17) of the elevator (1) via data connection (36)), the further data correlating with the at least one condition in other elevators (elevators at different sites (32), and the use of a diagnostic system (40)); determining a current relative behavior, or operation, of the observed elevator (1) during the application phase based on a comparison of the first data with the further data (using a data receiving unit (42) of a diagnostic system (40) in connection with communication unit (30); see paragraphs [0038] and [0079] for comparison of data; see paragraphs [0068] and [0077] for using information on other elevators); and detecting a malfunction in the observed elevator (1) based on an analysis of the current relative behavior, or operation (see paragraphs [0065]-[0082]; with an analyzing unit (46), which is configured for automatically analyzing the elevator operation and diagnosis data received by the at least one receiving unit (42), in particular by comparing the received data with previously stored data, in order to detect an malfunction of one of the elevators).
As for claim 14, Toutaoui teaches the use of memory (44) wherein the malfunction to be detected is a temporary blockage of the observed elevator (1) and wherein the first data and the further data correlate to conditions of an elevator being affected by the temporary blockage of the elevator (1) by storing, comparing and automatically analyzing the elevator operation and diagnosis data received by the at least one receiving unit (42), in particular by comparing the received data with previously stored data, in order to detect any malfunction of one of the elevators (see paragraphs [0038], [0046]-[0048] and [0061]).
As for claim 15, Toutaoui teaches a method (see steps 400, 410, 420, 430, 440) wherein a normal relative behavior of the observed elevator (1) is determined in a learning phase, and stored in memory, to adjust the normal relative behavior (i.e. threshold) in combination with other elevators in order to determine a malfunction (see paragraphs [0061]-[0068]).
As for claims 16 and 17, Toutaoui teaches the further data acquired in other elevators having a certain similarity to the observed elevator (see references cited above, in particular paragraph [0068]).
As for claim 18, Toutaoui teaches the similarity between the observed elevator and one of the other elevators determined based upon at least information relating to a physical distance between the elevators (see paragraph [0077]) or information relating to an application of the observed elevator and the other elevator (see paragraph [0080]).
As for claims 19 and 21, Toutaoui teaches data acquired by sensors and the generation of control data (see paragraphs [0024] and [0031]-[0033]).
As for claim 20, Toutaoui teaches the first and further data correlated to at least door movements, number of activations, or time lapses/ time outs/expected lifetimes (see paragraphs 0029]-[0030], [0049], [0053], [0056], [0080] and [0082]).
As for claim 22, Toutaoui teaches providing a failure message or notification (see paragraphs [0042], [0048], [0054], [0063] and [0072]).
As for claim 23, Toutaoui teaches initiating an action to over the malfunction (see end of Abstract, and paragraphs [0014], [0020], [0039] and [0042]).
As for claim 24, Toutaoui teaches an elevator controller comprising a data acquisition interface (input unit (5)) and a data processor (see elevator drive (12) and paragraphs [0021]) for executing, performing or controlling the method of claim 13.
As for claims 25 and 26, Toutaoui teaches an instruction unit (48) and a memory for storing instructions (see references cited above) for executing, performing or controlling the method of claim 13.
At least claim 13 can further be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Carreno et al. (US 2011/0240414) (see paragraphs [0019], [0028], [0031] and [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 USC 101 rejection, the Patent Office has been very strict lately regarding 101 rejections, and claim 13 provides no recitation of computer/processing components, or a tangible functional output. The steps of acquiring, determining, comparing and detecting can feasibly be done either in the mind, with manual calculations or manually received by the user. For example, regarding the steps of acquiring, this requires only that the data be received; there is no means for acquiring or receiving provided in the claim. Therefore, such a step can be performed mentally or manually without computing means.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention (i.e. first and further data recorded during the application phase, comparing the current behavior of the observed elevator with the current behavior of the other elevators, and the detection of incorrect behavior of the monitored elevator is thus based on a comparison of the current behavior of the observed elevator with the current behavior of the other elevators), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 13 does not recite that the first and further data are recorded, merely that they are acquired.
Further, Claim 13 does not recite that the first or further data is current or present data, merely “at least one condition in the observed/other elevators” is recited. Only determining current relative behavior of the observed elevator is specifically recited. Therefore, a comparison made with previously saved elevator data as disclosed by Toutaoui (US 2017/0349398) reads on “at least one condition in the observed/other elevators” as claimed.
Similarly, a comparison using recorded files as disclosed by Carreno (US 2011/0240414) also reads on the current present language.
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 Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 PM.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 571-272-3985. 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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 05/02/2025