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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: it depends on itself. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as depending from claim 3 as previous claim 10 does. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-11 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,319,186. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 13-19, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 12-18, 22-24, respectively, of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,319,186. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 12,21,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedli (USP 10112799) in view of Tutat et al. (USPGP 20190168995).
Regarding Claims 12,21,22 Friedli discloses an independent system and method for upgrading an existing elevator system in a structure, wherein the existing elevator system comprises:
a plurality of first floor devices (2, 2’, 2”) with separate first floor devices positioned on separate floors of the structure, the first floor devices configured to receive elevator passenger call inputs (column 8, lines 6-19; and figure 2);
a first elevator car control input panel at least one first elevator vertical position sensing system (inherent via column 5, lines 25-47; and column 11, lines 19-54);
a first elevator controller (5) which receives first system signal inputs corresponding to passenger call inputs from the first floor devices (2, 2’, 2”); which receives first system signal inputs corresponding to passenger floor destination inputs from the car control input panel (Figs. 2-3); and which controls travel and safety operations of the elevator (Figs. 2, 7, and 8); and
a first communication system providing communications between the plurality of first floor devices and the first elevator controller (column 13, lines 20-63);
the independent system comprising:
a plurality of second floor devices (12, 12’, 12”) with separate second floor devices positioned on separate floors of the structure and configured to receive elevator passenger call inputs;
a second elevator car device attached to the elevator car and configured to receive elevator passenger floor destination inputs (Fig. 12);
a second communication system configured to provide signal communication between each of the second floor devices and the second elevator car device (column 9, line 51 — column 10, line 25); and wherein signals from the independent system, communicated to the first elevator controller, cause the first elevator controller to transport the elevator car in accordance with the signals from the independent system (Figs. 8, 10, and 12).
Friedli does not disclose a second vertical position sensing system. However, Tutat discloses a first vertical position sensor (19/21a) and a second vertical position sensing system (19/21b) (abstract; and paras. 0048-0052). Tutat discloses the independent system and method, wherein the second vertical position sensing system comprises a first element affixed to the structure at each floor serviced by the elevator and a second cooperative element affixed to the elevator car (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the teachings of Tutat with Friedli, because the teachings provide specifics on how the elevator car position is determined vertically.
Claims 20, 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedli in view of Tutat et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Simcik et al. (USPGP 20180346282).
Regarding Claim 20, Friedli and Tutat (applied here in a similar manner as claim 12 above) disclose all features claimed, and both provide sensing the position of the elevator car. Tutat further provides multiple devices for sensing the elevator position. The Frieli/Tutat combination does not explicitly teach using triangulation.
However, Simcik teaches an independent system and method, wherein the vertical position of the elevator car can be determined by triangulation (paragraph 0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the teachings of Simcik with the Friedli/Tutat combination, because the teachings provide a functionally equivalent method for determining position of an elevator car.
Regarding Claims 26,27,29,30 the Friedli/Tutat combination (applied here in a similar manner as claim 12 above) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach a configuration to send and receive touchless communications with a mobile phone of an elevator passenger, configured to process signals received from the mobile phone of the elevator passenger.
Simcik discloses sending and receiving touchless communications with a mobile phone of an elevator passenger, configured to process signals received from the mobile phone of the elevator passenger (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 28, Simcik is applied here in a similar manner to the Friedli/Tutat combination as to claim 20 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited show related teachings in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY DONELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
JEFFREY . DONELS
Examiner
Art Unit 2837
/JEFFREY DONELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837