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 arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1 and 17, the examiner disagrees with the following reason(s):
After further review of the amendments in light of the specification (e.g. paragraphs [0062] of the specification and Figures 3 & 5 of the instant application), the claimed output signal appears to be output signal 316 that is outputted from the elevator to the controller tuner, which is not a command; for examination purpose, the claimed “output signal” is interpreted in light of the specification (i.e. the output signal is signal corresponds to speed). Therefore, command signal (e.g. Fig. 1: wref, Iqref, Vx, Vy, Vz) of Colby discloses the claimed “control signal”, and speed signal (e.g. Fig. 1: wR) of Colby discloses the claimed “output signal”.
If applicant refers the control signal 314 outputs to the electrical machine and the controller tuner as the claimed “output signal” (e.g. paragraphs [0062] of the specification and Figures 3 & 5 of the instant application), the claimed “output signal” and the claimed “control signal” are referring to the claimed subject matter. If broadly interpreting the claimed control signal and the output signal as a single signal, command signal (e.g. Fig. 1: wref) of Colby can be considered as the claimed control signal and output signal.
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to claim 10, the examiner disagrees with the following reasons:
recited limitations in the claim state “the elevator system having at least one movable component” and “a monitoring system positioned remotely from the elevator system”;
Colby discloses the at least one movable component (e.g. Fig. 1: 24, 28) and monitoring system (e.g. Fig. 1: 7, 48) that are positioned separately (e.g. motor/elevator and the controller are connected via communication line 36 and/or mechanical linkage 26).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, the limitation “an output signal that is a command” renders the claims indefinite.
According to paragraphs [0062] of the specification and Figures 3 & 5 of the instant application, the “output signal” appears to be output signal 316 that is outputted from the elevator to the controller tuner, which is not a command.
For examination purpose, the claimed “output signal” is interpreted in light of the specification (i.e. the output signal is signal corresponds to speed). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2-9 and 18-20, these claims are directly or indirectly depend on claim 1 or claim 17; thus, they are indefinite at least in view of the foregoing reasons regarding claims 1 and 17.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Colby et al. (US 5,880,416).
Regarding claim 1, Colby discloses an elevator system (e.g. Fig. 1) having at least one movable component (e.g. Fig. 1: 24, 32) and at least one component (e.g. Fig. 1: 10) generating a reference signal (e.g. Fig. 1: w ref), the elevator system comprising:
a controller (e.g. Fig. 1: 14) that generates a control signal (e.g. Fig. 1: Iqref, Vx, Vy, Vz);
an output signal that is a command (e.g. Fig. 1: 36 wR) indicative of a movement of the at least one movable component of the elevator system based on the control signal; and
a controller tuner (e.g. Fig. 1: 48) communicatively coupled to the controller, the controller tuner receives the output signal (e.g. Fig. 1: 36) and the reference signal (e.g. Fig. 1: w ref 12 at module 52) to calculate an error signal, the controller tuner uses the error signal to calculate a corrected control signal (e.g. Fig. 1: J*, K*T) and transmits the corrected control signal to the controller (e.g. Fig. 1: 16),
wherein the corrected control signal manipulates the control signal generated by the controller to change the movement of the at least one movable component (e.g. Fig. 1: J*, K*T adjust the output of speed loop compensation 16 that generates control signal Iqref, Vx, Vy, Vz).
Regarding claim 2, Colby discloses the controller generates the control signal based on a plurality of preset parameters stored within the controller (e.g. Fig. 5: 202 J*INIT & K*T INIT).
Regarding claim 3, Colby discloses the corrected control signal is determined using an algorithm to compute a new set of the plurality of preset parameters, the algorithm is data driven (e.g. Fig. 1: 48).
Regarding claim 4, Colby discloses the corrected control signal includes a manipulation of at least one of the plurality of preset parameters of the controller (e.g. Figs. 1 & 5: J* & K*T & col 5 lines 45-51).
Regarding claim 5, Colby discloses the reference signal is a target speed of the at least one movable component and the output signal is indicative of a current speed of the movement of the at least one movable component (e.g. Fig. 1: w ref & wR).
Regarding claim 7, Colby discloses the elevator system further comprises: a drive assembly having: an electrical machine (e.g. Fig. 1: motor controller 14, current regulator 20); and an inverter (e.g. Fig. 1: motor drive 20), wherein the electrical machine and the inverter cooperate to generate the output signal to control the movement of the at least one movable component based on the control signal (e.g. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Colby discloses the elevator system further comprises: a monitoring system that remotely monitors the output signal of the elevator system (e.g. Fig. 1: 48); and a mobile device (e.g. Fig. 1: 80) communicatively coupled to the monitoring system, wherein when the error signal of the elevator system fails to meet a predetermined performance threshold, the monitoring system alerts the mobile device (e.g. Fig. 1: fault signal).
Regarding claim 9, Colby discloses a user of the mobile device remotely approves transmitting the corrected control signal from the controller tuner to the controller (e.g. Fig. 1: start-stop motor parameters; Fig. 5: 216, 224: service personnel can remotely stop the operation; did not send stop command implies approval of the transmission).
Regarding claim 10, Colby discloses a method for retuning an elevator system (e.g. Abstract & Fig. 1: 48), the elevator system having at least one movable component (e.g. Fig. 1: 24, 28), a monitoring system positioned remotely from the elevator system (e.g. Fig. 1: 7, 48; positioned separately from the motor and/or the elevator), the method comprising:
analyzing, by the monitoring system (e.g. Fig. 1: 7, 48), an output signal (e.g. Fig. 1: wR 36) of the elevator system, the output signal is indicative of a movement of the at least one movable component;
determining, by the monitoring system (e.g. Fig. 1: 66), when a retune of a controller that generates a control signal is required (e.g. col 5 lines 45-51), the controller having a plurality of preset parameters (e.g. Fig. 5: 202 J*INIT & K*T INIT) that influence the control signal which controls the movement of the at least one movable component;
gathering, by the monitoring system (e.g. Fig. 1: 36), a plurality of data related to operations of the at least one movable component associated with the output signal based on the control signal (e.g. Fig. 1: wREF & wR);
computing via an algorithm (e.g. col 4 lines 9-16), by a controller tuner (e.g. Fig. 1: 48), a new set of the plurality of preset parameters, the new set of the plurality of preset parameters having at least one parameter different from the plurality of preset parameters (e.g. Fig. 1: 66 J* & K*T);
transmitting, by the controller tuner, a corrected control signal to the controller (e.g. Fig. 1: 74); and
autonomously (e.g. col 2 lines 8-11) applying, by the controller, the corrected control signal to the at least one movable component to change the movement of the at least one movable component (e.g. Fig. 1: 14).
Regarding claim 11, Colby discloses after the step of determining, by the monitoring system, whether the retune of the controller that generates the control signal is required, the controller having the plurality of preset parameters that influence the control signal:
alerting, by the monitoring system, a mobile device communicatively coupled to the monitoring system that the retune of the controller that generates the control signal is required (e.g. Fig. 1: sending done signal to the tool to indicate new J* has been computed for tuning the system); and
receiving, by the monitoring system, an approval from the mobile device to transmit the corrected control signal to the controller (e.g. Fig. 1: start-stop motor parameters; Fig. 5: 216, 224: service personnel can remotely stop the operation; did not send stop command implies approval of the transmission).
Regarding claim 12, Colby discloses gathering, by the monitoring system, a second plurality of data related to operations of the at least one movable component of the elevator system associated with the output signal based on the corrected control signal (e.g. col 1 line 55 to col 2 line 7: repeatedly detecting and comparing actual speed with varying model motor speed to compute reference error by varying J*, i.e. corrected control signal).
Regarding claim 13, Colby discloses determining, by the monitoring system, whether the second plurality of data related to operations of the at least one movable component of the elevator system associated with the output signal based on the corrected control signal meets a predetermined performance threshold (e.g. col 1 line 55 to col 2 line 7 & col 5 lines 45-51: until J* within a tolerance level).
Regarding claim 14, Colby discloses storing, by the controller, the new set of the plurality of preset parameters for the corrected control signal as the control signal when the second plurality of data meets the predetermined performance threshold (e.g. col 1 line 55 to col 2 line 7 & col 5 lines 45-51: until J* within a tolerance level).
Regarding claim 15, Colby discloses computing via the algorithm, by the controller tuner, a second new set of the plurality of preset parameters when the second plurality of data fails to meet the predetermined performance threshold, the second new set of the plurality of preset parameters having at least one parameter different from the new set of the plurality of preset parameters; providing, by the controller tuner, a second corrected control signal to the controller, and applying, by the controller, the second corrected control signal to change the movement of the at least one movable component (e.g. col 1 line 55 to col 2 line 7 & col 5 lines 45-51: until J* within a tolerance level).
Regarding claim 16, Colby discloses the algorithm is a data driven algorithm (e.g. Fig. 5 & Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 17, Colby discloses an elevator system (e.g. Fig. 1) having an elevator car (e.g. Fig. 1: 32), a shaft (inherently disclosed) and a drive assembly (e.g. Fig. 1: 20), the drive assembly (e.g. col 3 lines 25-39) having an electrical machine (e.g. Fig. 1: 20 current regulator) and an inverter (e.g. Fig. 1: motor drive) that cooperate to generate an output signal that is a command (e.g. Fig. 1: 36 wR) to cause a movement of the elevator car through the shaft, the elevator system comprising:
a controller (e.g. Fig. 1: 14) having a plurality of preset parameters (e.g. Figs. 1 & 5: J* & K*T & col 5 lines 45-51) stored within the controller that generates a control signal (e.g. Fig. 1: Iqref, Vx, Vy, Vz);
a monitoring system (e.g. Fig. 1: 48) that remotely monitors the output signal of the elevator system; and
a controller tuner (e.g. Fig. 1: 66) communicatively coupled to the controller and to the monitoring system,
the controller tuner includes a data driven algorithm (e.g. Fig. 5 & Fig. 13) that autonomously calculates a corrected control signal, the corrected control signal having a new set of the plurality of preset parameters (e.g. Fig. 1: J*, K*T),
the controller tuner transmits the corrected control signal to the controller, wherein the transmitting of the corrected control signal to the controller manipulates at least one of the plurality of preset parameters based on the new set of the plurality of preset parameters to change the control signal of the controller to change the movement of the elevator car through the shaft (e.g. Fig. 1: J*, K*T adjust the output of speed loop compensation 16 that generates control signal Iqref, Vx, Vy, Vz).
Regarding claim 18, Colby discloses the monitoring system determines that a manipulation of at least one of the plurality of preset parameters of the controller is required by calculating an error signal, the error signal is calculated by subtracting the output signal from a reference signal generated from the drive assembly (e.g. Fig. 1: module 55).
Regarding claim 19, Colby discloses when the monitoring system determines that manipulation of the least one of the plurality of preset parameters of the controller is required, the monitoring system instructs the controller tuner to execute the data driven algorithm (e.g. Fig. 1: PASS signal from module 63).
Regarding claim 20, Colby discloses:
a mobile device (e.g. Fig. 1: 80) communicatively coupled to the monitoring system (e.g. Fig. 1: 48), wherein when the monitoring system determines that the manipulation of the least one of the plurality of preset parameters of the controller is required, the monitoring system alerts the mobile device (e.g. Fig. 1: DONE signal).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colby et al. (US 5,880,416) in view of Barrett et al. (US 5,373,120).
Regarding claim 6, Colby fails to disclose, but Barrett teaches the reference signal is a target acceleration rate of the at least one movable component and the output signal is indicative of a current acceleration rate of the movement of the at least one movable component (col 10 lines 55-61).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Colby with the teachings of Barrett to utilize acceleration comparison instead of velocity comparison for controlling an elevator, since Barrett teaches it is well-known to utilize force/position/acceleration/velocity as feedback in a closed-loop system of an elevator. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art since it is merely simple substitutions of one known technique with another according to KSR.
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 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 at 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