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
Applicant’s request for reconsideration, see pages 1-5, filed on November, 26, 2025, of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3, filed on November 26, 2025, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As presented by applicant, paragraph [0038] discloses an “operational model can particularly comprise various values of a remaining power capacity of a storage device, each linked to a different combination of charge levels, degradation levels and/or temperature levels of the energy storage device. Such an operational model can particularly comprise various values of power demand of an electrical consumer, each linked to a different combination of operational status and/or environmental/operational parameters of the electrical consumer.” Said language does not constitute an actual “operational model” because the links between the combination of levels is not established, and the links between the values and the operational status and/or operational parameters is not established.
As presented by applicant, paragraph [0041] discloses “at least one operational model, particularly a characteristic diagram, in which different predicted remaining power supply capacities and/or different power demands are linked to at least one or a combination of at least one value.” Said language does not constitute an actual “operational model” because the link between value and capacities and/or demands is not established.
As presented by applicant, paragraph [0049] discloses “several characteristic diagrams, linking different predicted remaining power supply capacities C of the energy storage device 12 and/or different power demands D of the electrical consumers 4, 5, 6 to different combinations of values of various parameters.” Said language does not constitute an actual “operational model” because the link between power supply capacities and/or demands and the combination of parameters is not established.
As presented by applicant, paragraph [0058] discloses “a charge level of the energy storage device 12 is determined, particularly by accessing a battery management system (not shown in FIG. 1) and/or the operational model 16.” Said language does not constitute an actual “operational model” because how the “charge level” is determined by the operational model is not established.
As presented by applicant, paragraph [0059] discloses “a degradation level of the energy storage device 12 is determined, particularly by accessing a battery management system and/or the operational model 16”. Said language does not constitute an actual “operational model” because how the “degradation level” is determined by the operational model is not established.
As presented by applicant, paragraph [0071] discloses “In FIG. 3a, a diagram representative of a positive outcome of the test according to FIG. 2 is shown.” Said language does not constitute an actual “operational model” because the operational steps illustrated by FIG. 2 are not recited by the claim and the determinations of those steps are not established in the specification.
As presented by applicant, paragraph [0072] discloses “The data presented in this diagram has been derived by the control unit 10 accessing operational model 16 for a deposited correlation between remaining capacity of energy storage device 12, overall power consumption of electrical consumers 4, 5 and 6, and remaining battery voltage.” Said language does not constitute an actual “operational model” because the derivation performed by the control unit and the correlation between remaining capacity, power consumption, and remaining voltage is not established.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-5, filed on November 26, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 16-28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0122589 A1 to Mezzadri et al.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one operational model” recited by claims 23 and 27 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Although the specification states that:
“at least one operational model, particularly a characteristic diagram” (see paragraph [0037]);
“an operational model can particularly comprise various values of a remaining power capacity of a storage device, each linked to a different combination of charge levels, degradation levels and/or temperature levels of the energy storage device. Such an operational model can particularly comprise various values of power demand of an electrical consumer, each linked to a different combination of operational status and/or environmental/operational parameters of the electrical consumer.” (see paragraph [0038]);
“at least one operational model, particularly a characteristic diagram, in which different predicted remaining power supply capacities and/or different power demands are linked to at least one or a combination of at least one value of: a) an operating status of an electrical consumer in the elevator cabin, and/or b) an environmental parameter of the elevator cabin, and/or c) a charge level of the energy storage device, and/or d) a degradation parameter of the energy storage device” (see paragraph [0041]); and
“an operational model 16, which exemplary comprises several characteristic diagrams, linking different predicted remaining power supply capacities C of the energy storage device 12 and/or different power demands D of the electrical consumers 4, 5, 6 to different combinations of values of various parameters” (see paragraph [0049]);
“a charge level of the energy storage device 12 is determined, particularly by accessing a battery management system (not shown in FIG. 1) and/or the operational model 16” (see paragraph [0058]);
“a degradation level of the energy storage device 12 is determined, particularly by accessing a battery management system and/or the operational model 16” (see paragraph [0059]);
“an operational status (e.g. on/off) is determined and linked to a power consumption deposited in operational model 16 for the present status” (see paragraph [0064]); and
“data presented in this diagram has been derived by the control unit 10 accessing operational model 16 for a deposited correlation between remaining capacity of energy storage device 12, overall power consumption of electrical consumers 4, 5 and 6, and remaining battery voltage” (see paragraph [0072]);
the specification is completely silent on, and fails to provide any information/indication/teaching of what said model actually is, as a list of possibilities which are linked by unspecified relationships to multiple combination of values of distinct parameters is not a defined model.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the best mode contemplated by the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors has not been disclosed. Evidence of concealment of the best mode is based upon the fact that the specification fails to disclose what the “operational model” is.
Claims 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter (“operational model”) which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to disclose what the “operational model” is.
Claims 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention because the specification fails to disclose what the “operational model” is.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted steps are:
the sequence of operational steps linking electrical power and electrical parameters that constitutes an “operational model”.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “elevator system of claim 29” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 29 has been cancelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-20, 22-26, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0122589 A1 to Mezzadri et al.
Mezzadri et al. clearly teaches an elevator system with power storage device, comprising:
determining a remaining power supply capacity of an energy storage device (26) of the emergency power supply (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]);
determining a power demand of at least one electrical consumer (36; see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]) in the elevator cabin (see Figure 2); and
predicting a period of time in which the energy storage device is capable of providing the electrical consumer with power, based on the determined remaining power supply capacity and the determined power demand (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]).
With regards to claim 17, Mezzadri et al. discloses:
comparing the predicted period of time to a predetermined time period threshold (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]).
With regards to claim 18, Mezzadri et al. discloses:
providing in the elevator cabin, and/or to a maintenance facility, information representative of the result of the comparing step (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]).
With regards to claim 19, Mezzadri et al. discloses:
the information provided indicates that the time period threshold exceeds the predicted period of time and is presented in the form of one or more of a visual, sound, or text-based message (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]).
With regards to claim 20, Mezzadri et al. discloses:
the power demand being determined based on at least one of a power consumption or a development of the power consumption of the electrical consumer during a test interval (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]).
With regards to claim 22, Mezzadri et al. discloses:
the remaining power supply capacity is determined based on at least one of: a value of a parameter representative of a charge level of the energy storage device; a value of a degradation parameter of the energy storage device; or a value of an environmental parameter of the elevator cabin (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]).
With regards to claim 23, Mezzadri et al. discloses:
at least one of the remaining power supply capacity or the power demand is determined based on at least one operational model (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]).
With regards to claim 24, Mezzadri et al. discloses:
an energy storage device (26) configured to provide power to an electrical consumer during a failure of an elevator main power supply (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]); and
a control unit (24) configured to:
control operation of the energy storage device (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]);
determine a remaining power supply capacity of the energy storage device (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]);
determine a power demand of the electrical consumer (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]); and
predict a period of time in which the energy storage device is capable of providing the electrical consumer with power, based on the determined remaining power supply capacity and the determined power demand (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]).
With regards to claim 25, Mezzadri et al. discloses:
said control unit being further configured to compare the predicted period of time to a predetermined time period threshold (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]), the emergency power supply further comprising: an information interface configured to visually, textually, and/or audibly inform a maintenance technician of a result of a comparison of the predicted period of time and a predetermined time period threshold (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]).
With regards to claim 26, Mezzadri et al. discloses:
a communication device (alarm) configured to remotely inform a maintenance facility of a result of a comparison of the predicted period of time and a predetermined time period threshold.
With regards to claim 28, Mezzadri et al. discloses:
an elevator cabin (12) configured to be moved within an elevator shaft (see Figure 1);
an emergency power supply (26) configured to supply emergency power to at least one electrical consumer (36) in said elevator cabin (see Figure 2), said emergency power supply having:
an energy storage device configured to provide power to the electrical consumer during a failure of an elevator main power supply (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]); and
a control unit (24) configured to:
control operation of the energy storage device (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]);
determine a remaining power supply capacity of the energy storage device (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]);
determine a power demand of the electrical consumer (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]); and
predict a period of time in which the energy storage device is capable of providing the electrical consumer with power, based on the determined remaining power supply capacity and the determined power demand (see paragraphs [0019] and [0024] - [0054]).
With regards to claim 30, Mezzadri et al. discloses:
said electrical consumer being one of a cabin light, an emergency communication device, or an emergency air conditioner (see Figure 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0122589 A1 to Mezzadri et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0377306 A1 to Drees et al.
Mezzadri et al. clearly teaches an elevator system with power storage device as described in paragraph 22 above.
However, it fails to disclose the power demand being determined based on at least one value of at least one environmental parameter of the elevator cabin.
Drees et al. discloses building control systems with optimization of equipment life cycle economic value while participating in IBDR and PBDR programs, comprising:
determining power demand based on at least one value of at least one environmental parameter (see paragraphs [0037], [0093], [0234], [0240], [0245], [0256], [0455], [0456], and [0460]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use a value of an environmental parameter as disclosed by Drees et al. on the elevator system disclosed by Mezzadri et al., for the purpose of optimizing the power demand and power consumption of the system.
With regards to claim 27, Mezzadri et al. in view of Drees et al. disclose:
the control unit being configured to access at least one operational model in which different predicted remaining power supply capacities and/or different power demands are linked to at least one of:
an operating status of an electrical consumer in the elevator cabin;
an environmental parameter (see paragraphs [0037], [0093], [0234], [0240], [0245], [0256], [0455], [0456], and [0460] of Drees et al.) of the elevator cabin;
a charge level of the energy storage device; or
a degradation parameter of the energy storage device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEDRO J CUEVAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2021. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jessica Han can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/PEDRO J CUEVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 January 16, 2026