DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is a response to amendments submitted on 11/21/2025.
2. Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims have been moot in view of the new added limitations and new ground of rejection under 35 USC § 101.
3. Claims 16 and 18-35 are presented for examination.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16 and 18-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and extra post solution without integrating it into a practical application Claims 16-23 are ineligible. In regards to claims 16 and 18-23, and 30, recite(s) “interacting at least once with an elevator control of the elevator installation; and confirming, by the elevator control, performance of the at least one maintenance step based on the at least one interaction, wherein: said step of interacting with the elevator control further comprises receiving incoming signals into the elevator control; and said confirming step comprises: comparing, by the elevator control, the incoming signals with at least one stored interaction signature stored on the elevator control, the at least one stored interaction signature being characteristic of a maintenance procedure, and confirming, by the elevator control, performance of the at least one maintenance step in response to a positive identification of the interaction signature being present among the incoming signals”, for claims 24-29, 31 and 35, recites “comparison module configured to compare incoming signals from performance of the at least one maintenance step with the stored interaction signature, and confirm the actual performance of the associated maintenance step in response to a positive identification that the incoming signals include the interaction signature”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these data gathering is an extra post solution without integrating it into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea (organizing human activity and mental processes) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 16, 24, 30 and 31 the claim(s) recite(s) “accept a partial trajectory of a motion of a person moving in an environment serviced by the bank of elevators”, “ interacting with the elevator control further comprises receiving incoming signals into the elevator control; and said confirming step comprises: comparing, by the elevator control, the incoming signals with at least one stored interaction signature stored on the elevator control, the at least one stored interaction signature being characteristic of a maintenance procedure, and confirming, by the elevator control, performance of the at least one maintenance step in response to a positive identification of the interaction signature being present among the incoming signals.” And to compare incoming signals from performance of the at least one maintenance step with the stored interaction signature, and confirm the actual performance of the associated maintenance step in response to a positive identification that the incoming signals include the interaction signatuer”. The acquire of the data information as to accept obtain said data could be performed by mental processes, and generate a set of possible future requests and optimize a schedule is merely organizing human activity. These steps are merely a manipulation of data (signals) that would not require any structural correlation as presented in the claims and can be performed mentally. However, these limitations constitute mental processes, which are recognized judicial exceptions. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP 2106.04.
The claim further recites additional elements, such as “An elevator control; receiving incoming signals; confirming, by the elevator control and a positive identification of the interaction signature being present among the incoming signals” to perform the abstract tasks; however, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
The “elevator control” is recited at a high level of generality and serves as a generic computing device for implementing the abstract idea;
the “elevator control” is a well-known device for collecting data, therefore, it is no more than using well-known generic hardware as a tool to collect data. The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply “significantly more”.
The claims recites “interacting at least once with an elevator control of the elevator installation; and confirming, by the elevator control, performance of the at least one maintenance step based on the at least one interaction, wherein: said step of interacting with the elevator control further comprises receiving incoming signals into the elevator control; and said confirming step comprises: comparing, by the elevator control, the incoming signals with at least one stored interaction signature stored on the elevator control, the at least one stored interaction signature being characteristic of a maintenance procedure, and confirming, by the elevator control, performance of the at least one maintenance step in response to a positive identification of the interaction signature being present among the incoming signals”, for claims 24-29, 31 and 35, recites “comparison module configured to compare incoming signals from performance of the at least one maintenance step with the stored interaction signature, and confirm the actual performance of the associated maintenance step in response to a positive identification that the incoming signals include the interaction signature”. These all are all mental steps as evident from the disclosure. The grouping of "mathematical concepts" in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, limitation recites a concept that falls into the "mathematical concept"
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improvement to computer architecture); Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (transformation); MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, claims 16 and 18-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For purposes of office action, the claims will be interpreted as controlling the arrival of the elevators based on possibilities gathered by historic user traffic data and training functions from stored and new data gathering.
Conclusion
5. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L CARRASQUILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7879. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday (9am to 5pm).
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE L CARRASQUILLO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Prosecution Insights