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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicants’ amendment filed June 8, 2026. Claims 7-14 have been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are pending with claims 4-6, 16 and 18 being previously withdrawn. An action on the merits is as follows.
Objections to claims 1 and 10 have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 1-3, 15, 17, 19 and 20 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 claim(s) contains subject matter 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 include the limitation “detecting a first advertisement emitted by a first beacon to confirm that an individual is boarding a first elevator system”. However applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not properly describe a confirmation to be made that an individual is boarding a first elevator system. According to the specification, a determination is made that an individual “will be” boarding an elevator system (page 18 paragraph [0075]). Determining that someone will be boarding an elevator requires detection and analysis of a person’s current movement in order to predict whether he/she will arrive at an elevator in the future. In contrast, confirming that someone is currently boarding an elevator requires a previous elevator assignment to a person, detecting when said person enters an elevator car, and comparing elevator assignment information of said person to the currently boarded elevator car. In addition, the specification describes that a confirmation is made when an individual boards an escalator (page 11 paragraph [0048]) or a moving walkway (page 15 paragraph [0063]). Escalators and moving walkways are not recognized in the art as elevator systems, but instead as passenger transport systems. Therefore this limitation is considered new matter.
Claims 2, 3, 15 and 17 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims then also contain the limitations considered as new matter.
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 2, 3 and 15 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.
Claims 2, 3 and 15 include limitations “wherein the first location is located at (a bottom of) an escalator (or a top of the escalator)”. However claim 1, from which claims 2, 3 and 15 depend describes the first location to be associated with a first beacon which emits a first advertisement. The first advertisement is further described to confirm that an individual is boarding a “first elevator system”. However escalators are not recognized in the art as elevator systems, but instead as passenger transport systems. It is unclear how an advertisement emitted from a location at an escalator can be used to confirm that someone is currently boarding an elevator car. For examining purposes, the ”first elevator system” described in claims 1, 19 and 20 is interpreted as a “first transport system”.
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.
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 1, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 2019/0161317 A1) in view of Namboodiri et al. (US 2019//072395 A1).
Claims 1, 19 and 20: Nichols et al. discloses a method and system for generating an elevator call using a mobile device, and a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform steps comprising: detecting at a mobile device (130), a first advertisement (Beacon A) emitted by a first location device (120) when an individual is boarding a first transport system (first elevator car 104) (page 6 paragraph [0087]). Location devices are described as beacons (page 4 paragraph [0060]), and the first beacon is shown in FIG. 1 to be located at a first location, configured to emit the first advertisement a first selected range (radius R4) away from the first beacon (page 3 paragraph [0055]). A second advertisement (Beacon B) emitted by a second beacon (location device 116) is detected at the mobile device (page 6 paragraph [0088]). The second beacon is shown to be located at a second location and is configured to emit the second advertisement a second selected range away from the second beacon (page 3 paragraph [0055]).
A determination is made as to whether the individual will be boarding a second elevator (106) of the elevator system based on a correct event trigger sequence of the first location of the first beacon and the second location of the second beacon, and the elevator call is transmitted to a dispatcher of the elevator system based on determining that the individual will be boarding the second elevator of the elevator system (page 6 paragraph [0088]). This embodiment fails to disclose the first advertisement to confirm the individual is boarding the first transport system, a third advertisement emitted by a third beacon to be detected, the third beacon to be located at a third location and configured to emit the third advertisement a third selected range away from the third beacon, and the determination that the individual will be boarding the elevator system to be based on at least the third location of the third beacon in addition to the first location of the first beacon and the second location of the second beacon.
However Nichols et al. teaches a different embodiment where the first advertisement emitted by the first beacon (120) confirms the individual is boarding the first transport system (elevator car 104) (page 6 paragraph [0091]).
Given the teachings of the different embodiment of Nichols et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system and computer program product disclosed in Nichols et al. with providing the first advertisement to confirm the individual is boarding the first transport system. Doing so would allow operation of “automatic calls based on sequential detections of the mobile device … while a user is continuously notified of each elevator assignment without user confirmation (e.g., hands-free operation)” as taught in Nichols et al. (page 4 paragraph [0064]). This reference fails to disclose a third advertisement emitted by a third beacon to be detected, the third beacon to be located at a third location and configured to emit the third advertisement a third selected range away from the third beacon, and the determination that the individual will be boarding the elevator system to be based on at least the third location of the third beacon in addition to the first location of the first beacon and the second location of the second beacon.
However Namboodiri et al. teaches a method, system and a computer program product, where at least two beacons (4-6) are shown in Fig. 2 to be spaced apart on a same floor.
Given the teachings of Namboodiri et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system and computer program product disclosed in Nichols et al. with providing a third advertisement emitted by a third beacon detected by the mobile device, the third beacon to be located at a third location along the same hall as the second beacon, and configured to emit the third advertisement a third selected range away from the third beacon, such that the determination that the individual will be boarding the second elevator of the elevator system would be based on the third location of the third beacon in addition to the first location of the first beacon and the second location of the second beacon. It has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Doing so would allow “guidance [to] be provided to a user during [a] multi-segment trip” as taught in Nichols et al. (page 3 paragraph [0058]), using “indoor wayfinding systems for the blind, visually impaired, and disoriented … [by] optimizing placement of Bluetooth beacons within a site or building” as taught in Namboodiri et al. (page 1 paragraph [0003]).
Claim 17: Nichols et al. modified by Namboodiri et al. discloses a method as stated above, where the elevator call is disclosed in Nichols et al. to be automatically transmitted, using an application, based on determining that the individual will be boarding the elevator system, the application being operated through the mobile device (page 6 paragraph [0088]).
Claims 2, 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols et al. (US 2019/0161317 A1) modified by Namboodiri et al. (US 2019//072395 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hanninen et al. (US 2020/0239273 A1).
Claim 2: Nichols et al. modified by Namboodiri et al. discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose the first location to be located at an escalator which extends from a lower landing to an upper landing.
However Hanninen et al. teaches a method for an elevator system, where at least one secondary base station (520) located at an escalator (550) communicates with a mobile terminal (mobile phone) inside a building (230) (page 4 paragraph [0045]). The escalator extends from a lower landing to an upper landing, as shown in FIG. 5.
Given the teachings of Hanninen et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Nichols et al. as modified by Namboodiri et al. with providing the first location to be located at an escalator which extends from a lower landing to an upper landing. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Doing so would “enable one or more mobile terminals residing almost anywhere inside the building [to] use the mobile network” as taught in Hanninen et al. (page 4 paragraph [0045]) such that “guidance [can] be provided to a user during [a] multi-segment trip” as taught in Nichols et al. (page 3 paragraph [0058]), using “indoor wayfinding systems for the blind, visually impaired, and disoriented … [by] optimizing placement of Bluetooth beacons within a site or building” as taught in Namboodiri et al. (page 1 paragraph [0003]).
Claim 3: Nichols et al. modified by Namboodiri et al. and Hanninen et al. discloses a method as stated above, where the first location is shown in FIG. 5 of Hanninen et al. to be located at a top of the escalator, and the bottom of the escalator is located at the lower landing and the top of the escalator is located at the upper landing.
Claim 15: Nichols et al. modified by Namboodiri et al. discloses a method as stated above, where the third location is shown in Namboodiri et al. to be located at an elevator bank of the elevator system (page 5 paragraph [0047]). These references fail to disclose the first location to be located at a bottom of an escalator, and the second location being located at top of the escalator, the bottom of the escalator being located at a lower landing, wherein the top of the escalator and the elevator bank are located on an upper landing.
Hanninen et al. teaches a method for an elevator system, where at least one secondary base station is located at the escalator (page 4 paragraph [0045]), shown in FIG. 5 to be located at a top of the escalator, where a bottom of the escalator is located at a lower landing and a top of the escalator and elevator bank are located at an upper landing.
Given the teachings of Hanninen et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Nichols et al. as modified by Namboodiri et al. with providing the first location to be located at a bottom of an escalator, and the second location being located at top of the escalator, the bottom of the escalator being located at a lower landing, wherein the top of the escalator and the elevator bank are located on an upper landing. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Doing so would “enable one or more mobile terminals residing almost anywhere inside the building [to] use the mobile network” as taught in Hanninen et al. (page 4 paragraph [0045]) such that “guidance [can] be provided to a user during [a] multi-segment trip” as taught in Nichols et al. (page 3 paragraph [0058]), using “indoor wayfinding systems for the blind, visually impaired, and disoriented … [by] optimizing placement of Bluetooth beacons within a site or building” as taught in Namboodiri et al. (page 1 paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
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 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 CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights