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 applicant’s amendment filed March 20, 2026. Claims 21-40 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Rejections of claims 24, 34-39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered and are addressed below.
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.
Claims 21-25, 27, 28 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thanagavelu (US 5,022,497) in view of Shinohe (US 2019/0002234 A1).
Claims 21 and 40: Thanagavelu discloses a method for positioning a plurality of elevator cars, and a system for controlling traffic flow of a plurality of elevator cars, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations where an occupant count at each of a plurality of locations is determined (column 8 lines 49-57) and a first elevator car of the plurality of elevator cars is moved to a first location of the plurality of locations having a first occupant count greater than a crowd limit (column 3 lines 28-31, column 12 lines 1-10) when the first elevator car is in an inactive state and remains in the inactive (parked) state (column 3 lines 42-44). The occupant count for each of the plurality of locations is periodically reassessed every fifteen seconds (column 3 lines 48-52). This reference fails to disclose the first elevator car to be moved in response to an occupant count at a location being greater than an occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations such that the first elevator car is moved to the first location in response to the first occupant count being greater than both: i) a second occupant count of a second location of the plurality of locations, and ii) the occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations, and the first elevator car to be repositioned from the first location to a second location in response to the second occupant count becoming greater than both: i) the first occupant count of the first location and ii) the occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations while the first elevator car remains in the inactive state.
However Shinohe teaches a method for positioning a plurality of elevator cars, and a system for controlling traffic flow of a plurality of elevator cars, where a first elevator car which is capable of arriving at a location (floor) first is moved to the location in response to an occupant count (number of people) at the location being greater than an occupant count at each remaining location of a plurality of locations (page 4 paragraph [0049]). The occupant count at the location then is determined to be greater than both: i) another occupant count of another location of the plurality of locations, and ii) the occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations. The first elevator car is part of a subset of elevator cars, where other elevator cars are controlled in a continuous loop providing service to calls that have been made (page 7 paragraph [0073]).
Given the teachings of Shinohe, 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 and system disclosed in Thanagavelu with providing the first elevator car to be moved in response to an occupant count at a location being greater than an occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations. The first elevator car then would be moved to the first location in response to the first occupant count being greater than both: i) a second occupant count of a second location of the plurality of locations, and ii) the occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations, and after the periodic reassigning of the occupant count for each of the plurality of locations, the first elevator car to be repositioned from the first location to a second location in response to the second occupant count becoming greater than both: i) the first occupant count of the first location and ii) the occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations while the first elevator car remains in the inactive state. Doing so would shorten “the waiting times of waiting people waiting for elevators on all floors” as taught in Shinohe (page 1 paragraph [0004]) while allowing “some of the elevator cars to perform in a continuous loop (up and then down, stopping at floors at which a request has been made) … [to] ensure that all floors will eventually be served in a reasonable time, so that the elevator cars are not restricted to serving only the largest groups of people and no group of people has to wait an unreasonably long time” (page 7 paragraph [0073]).
Claim 22: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe discloses a method where a first elevator car is moved to a first location having a first occupant count that is greater than at least a second occupant count of a second location, and after periodically reassessing the occupant count for each of the plurality of locations, the first elevator car is repositioned from the first location to the second location in response to the second occupant count of the second location becoming greater than at least the first occupant count of the first location, where the periodic reassessment is every fifteen seconds, as stated above. Therefore when the first elevator car requires more than fifteen seconds to arrive at the second location, determining the first occupant count of the first location is no longer greater than the second occupant count of the second location and modifying a location for parking the first elevator car in the inactive state from the first location to the second location would occur prior to repositioning the first elevator car from the first location to the second location, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 23: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe discloses a method as stated above, where periodically reassessing the occupant count at each location is disclosed in Thanagavelu to include determining a first number of occupants exiting the plurality of elevator cars at each of the plurality of locations and determining a second number of occupants entering the plurality of elevator cars from each of the plurality of locations (column 8 lines 53-57).
Claim 24: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe discloses a method where the first elevator car is parked at the second location while the first elevator car remains in the inactive state, as stated above. The first elevator car then would not transition to an active state for receiving occupants when relocating from the first location to the second location due to the first elevator car remaining in the inactive state.
Claim 25: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe discloses a method where an occupant count is determined at each of the plurality of locations, and the first elevator car is moved to a location having a greater occupant count than the remaining locations, as stated above. The occupant count at each location is disclosed in Thanagavelu to include determining a first number of occupants exiting the plurality of elevator cars at each of the plurality of locations and determining a second number of occupants entering the plurality of elevator cars from each of the plurality of locations (column 8 lines 53-57). Therefore the occupant count for each of the plurality of locations is determined by computing a difference of: the first number of occupants exiting the plurality of elevator cars at each of the plurality of locations and the second number of occupants entering the plurality of elevator cars from each of the plurality of locations in order to determine the location having the greatest occupant count.
Claim 27: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe discloses a method as stated above, where the first elevator car is disclosed in Thanagavelu to be in an active state for allowing occupants to board so as to include said occupants, the first elevator car is determined to be full and therefore exceeds an occupant capacity of the first elevator car when the first elevator car is in the active state, and the first elevator car is rendered inoperable for receiving another call such that the first elevator car is disregarded from said another call (column 2 lines 18-22).
Claim 28: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe discloses a method as stated above, where the first elevator car is disclosed in Thanagavelu to be in an active state for allowing occupants to board so as to include said occupants, the first elevator car is determined to be full and therefore exceeds an occupant capacity of the first elevator car when the first elevator car is in the active state, and the first elevator car is rendered inoperable for receiving another call such that the first elevator car is disregarded from said another call (column 2 lines 18-22). Accordingly, when the occupants in the first elevator car is below the occupant capacity of the elevator car then when the first elevator car is in the active state, the first elevator car is rendered operable for receiving said another call.
Claims 26, 29 and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thanagavelu (US 5,022,497) in view of Shinohe (US 2019/0002234 A1), further in view of Hawkins et al. (US 2023/0035019 A1).
Claims 26 and 29: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe discloses a method as stated above, where boarding or de-boarding counts are disclosed in Thanagavelu to be observed (column 8 lines 49-57). Therefore at least one counter device is included in order to generate data indicative of/count a number of occupants and objects in each of the plurality of elevator cars including the first elevator car. These references fail to disclose each of the plurality of elevator cars including the first elevator car to include a counter device.
However Hawkins et al. teaches a method for positioning a plurality of elevator cars, where a counter device (visual sensor) is positioned in each of a plurality of elevator cars to determine a number of passengers inside each elevator car (page 2 paragraph [0035]).
Given the teachings of Hawkins 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 and system disclosed in Thanagavelu as modified by Shinohe with providing each of the plurality of elevator cars including the first elevator car to include a counter device. Doing so would ensure that an elevator car selected to move to the location with the greatest occupant count is empty, “so as to allow distribution of the number of passenger[s] to the elevator car” as taught in Hawkin et al. (page 1 paragraph [0008]).
Claim 34: Thanagavelu discloses a system for positioning a plurality of elevator cars, where boarding or de-boarding counts are observed (column 8 lines 49-57), and therefore includes at least one counter device in order to generate data indicative of a number of occupants in the plurality of elevator cars. A dispatch controller operably coupled to the at least one counter device such that the dispatch controller receives data indicative of the number of occupants in the plurality of elevator cars (column 3 lines 37-44). An occupant count at each of a plurality of locations is determined (column 8 lines 49-57) and a first elevator car of the plurality of elevator cars is moved to a first location of the plurality of locations having a first occupant count greater than a crowd limit (column 3 lines 28-31, column 12 lines 1-10) when the first elevator car is in an inactive state and remains in the inactive (parked) state (column 3 lines 42-44). The occupant count for each of the plurality of locations is periodically reassessed each fifteen second (column 3 lines 48-52). This reference fails to disclose the first elevator car to be moved in response to an occupant count at a location being greater than an occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations such that the first elevator car is moved to the first location in response to the first occupant count being greater than both: i) a second occupant count of a second location of the plurality of locations, and ii) the occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations, and the first elevator car to be repositioned from the first location to a second location in response to the second occupant count becoming greater than both: i) the first occupant count of the first location and ii) the occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations while the first elevator car remains in the inactive state. This reference further fails to disclose the at least one counter device to be positioned in each of the plurality of elevator cars.
However Shinohe teaches a method for positioning a plurality of elevator cars, and a system for controlling traffic flow of a plurality of elevator cars, where a first elevator car which is capable of arriving at a location (floor) first is moved to the location in response to an occupant count (number of people) at the location being greater than an occupant count at each remaining location of a plurality of locations (page 4 paragraph [0049]). The occupant count at the location then is determined to be greater than both: i) another occupant count of another location of the plurality of locations, and ii) the occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations. The first elevator car is part of a subset of elevator cars, where other elevator cars are controlled in a continuous loop providing service to calls that have been made (page 7 paragraph [0073]).
Given the teachings of Shinohe, 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 and system disclosed in Thanagavelu with providing the first elevator car to be moved in response to an occupant count at a location being greater than an occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations. The first elevator car then would be moved to the first location in response to the first occupant count being greater than both: i) a second occupant count of a second location of the plurality of locations, and ii) the occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations, and after the periodic reassigning of the occupant count for each of the plurality of locations, the first elevator car to be repositioned from the first location to a second location in response to the second occupant count becoming greater than both: i) the first occupant count of the first location and ii) the occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations while the first elevator car remains in the inactive state. Doing so would shorten “the waiting times of waiting people waiting for elevators on all floors” as taught in Shinohe (page 1 paragraph [0004]) while allowing “some of the elevator cars to perform in a continuous loop (up and then down, stopping at floors at which a request has been made) … [to] ensure that all floors will eventually be served in a reasonable time, so that the elevator cars are not restricted to serving only the largest groups of people and no group of people has to wait an unreasonably long time” (page 7 paragraph [0073]). These references fail to disclose the at least one counter device to be positioned in each of the plurality of elevator cars.
However Hawkins et al. teaches a method for positioning a plurality of elevator cars, and a system for controlling traffic flow of a plurality of elevator cars, where a counter device (visual sensor) is positioned in each of a plurality of elevator cars to determine a number of passengers inside each elevator car (page 2 paragraph [0035]).
Given the teachings of Hawkins 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 and system disclosed in Thanagavelu as modified by Shinohe with providing the at least one counter device to be positioned in each of the plurality of elevator cars. Doing so would ensure that an elevator car selected to move to the location with the greatest occupant count is empty, “so as to allow distribution of the number of passenger[s] to the elevator car” as taught in Hawkin et al. (page 1 paragraph [0008]).
Claim 35: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe and Hawkins et al. discloses a system where a first elevator car is moved to a first location having a first occupant count that is greater than at least a second occupant count of a second location, and after periodically reassessing the occupant count for each of the plurality of locations, the first elevator car is repositioned from the first location to the second location in response to the second occupant count of the second location becoming greater than at least the first occupant count of the first location, where the periodic reassessment is every fifteen seconds, as stated above. Therefore when the first elevator car requires more than fifteen seconds to arrive at the second location, determining the first occupant count of the first location is no longer greater than the second occupant count of the second location and modifying a location for parking the first elevator car in the inactive state from the first location to the second location would occur prior to repositioning the first elevator car from the first location to the second location, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 36: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe and Hawkins et al. discloses a system as stated above, where periodically reassessing the occupant count at each location is disclosed in Thanagavelu to include determining a first number of occupants exiting the plurality of elevator cars at each of the plurality of locations and determining a second number of occupants entering the plurality of elevator cars from each of the plurality of locations (column 8 lines 53-57).
Claim 37: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe and Hawkins et al. discloses a system where the first elevator car is parked at the second location while the first elevator car remains in the inactive state, as stated above. The first elevator car then would not transition to an active state for receiving occupants when relocating from the first location to the second location due to the first elevator car remaining in the inactive state.
Claim 38: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe and Hawkins et al. discloses a method where an occupant count is determined at each of the plurality of locations, and the first elevator car is moved to a location having a greater occupant count than the remaining locations, as stated above. The occupant count at each location is disclosed in Thanagavelu to include determining a first number of occupants exiting the plurality of elevator cars at each of the plurality of locations and determining a second number of occupants entering the plurality of elevator cars from each of the plurality of locations (column 8 lines 53-57). Therefore the occupant count for each of the plurality of locations is determined by computing a difference of: the first number of occupants exiting the plurality of elevator cars at each of the plurality of locations and the second number of occupants entering the plurality of elevator cars from each of the plurality of locations in order to determine the location having the greatest occupant count.
Claim 39: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe and Hawkins et al. discloses a system as stated above, where the first elevator car is disclosed in Thanagavelu to be in an active state for allowing occupants to board so as to include said occupants, the first elevator car is determined to be full and therefore exceeds an occupant capacity of the first elevator car when the first elevator car is in the active state, and the first elevator car is rendered inoperable for receiving another call such that the first elevator car is disregarded from said another call (column 2 lines 18-22). Accordingly, when the occupants in the first elevator car is below the occupant capacity of the elevator car then when the first elevator car is in the active state, the first elevator car is rendered operable for receiving said another call.
Claims 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thanagavelu (US 5,022,497) modified by Shinohe (US 2019/0002234 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Suzuki (US 9,090,433 B2).
Claim 30: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe and Hawkins et al. discloses a method as stated above, where the first elevator car is shown in Shinohe to be part of a subset of the plurality of elevator cars that are moved to a location having a greater occupant count while being inactive, where other elevator cars are controlled in a continuous loop providing service to calls that have been made (page 7 paragraph [0073]). These references fail to disclose a number of the plurality of elevator cars in the inactive state at the second location to be determined to exceed a threshold and the subset of elevator cars in the inactive state to be moved from the second location to a third location.
However Suzuki teaches a method for positioning a plurality of elevator cars, where a number of a plurality of elevator cars in an inactive state (standby) at a location of a remote hall call registering device (5) is determined to exceed a threshold (required number) (column 8 lines 56-60). When servicing a floor is finished, elevator cars in the inactive state (parked) are moved from the location to another location (candidate floor) (column 11 lines 53-58).
Given the teachings of Suzuki, 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 and system disclosed in Thanagavelu as modified by Shinohe with providing a number of the plurality of elevator cars in the inactive state at the second location to be determined to exceed a threshold and the subset of elevator cars in the inactive state to be moved from the second location to a third location. Doing so would allow elevators to be parked at various floors in order to “prevent an increase in the number of runs and the running distance” as taught in Suzuki (column 1 lines 47-50) while allowing selection of a new parking floor during a standby operation means, e.g. after business hours, “after the finish of responses to all calls” (column 11 lines 41-51).
Claim 31: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe and Suzuki discloses a method where the first elevator car is parked at the second location in the inactive state, as stated above. The subset of elevator cars is parked at the third location in the inactive state, as shown in Suzuki (column 11 lines 53-58).
Claim 32: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe and Suzuki discloses a method where elevator cars are moved to a different location based on an occupant count at said different location being greater than an occupant count of an original location, and an occupant count at each remaining location, as stated above. These references fail to disclose prior to moving the subset of the plurality of elevator cars in the inactive state to the third location, determine the third location to include a third occupant count that is less than a second occupant count at the second location and greater than each of: i) the first occupant count at the first location and ii) the occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide prior to moving the subset of the plurality of elevator cars in the inactive state to the third location, determine the third location to include a third occupant count that is less than a second occupant count at the second location and greater than each of: i) the first occupant count at the first location and ii) the occupant count at each remaining location of the plurality of locations since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would “better service the crowded floor(s)” as taught in Thanagavelu (column 3 lines 42-43) by sending elevator cars to floors having a top priority, as taught in Shinohe (page 6 paragraph [0063]).
Claim 33: Thanagavelu modified by Shinohe and Suzuki discloses a method where elevator cars are moved to a different location based on an occupant count at said different location being greater than an occupant count of an original location, and an occupant count at each remaining location, as stated above. The plurality of elevator cars in the inactive state then would prioritize: the second location over the third location; and the third location over each remaining location of the plurality of locations based on an occupant count, as shown in Shinohe (page 6 paragraph [0063]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 13 of the response that “Shinhoe does not disclose initially moving an elevator car to a first location that has an occupant count that is greater than an occupant count at each remaining location and subsequently repositioning that elevator car to another (second) location in response to the occupant count at another (second) location becoming greater than both the occupant count at the first location that the elevator car was initially moved to along with the occupant count at all remaining locations”. However Shinhoe teaches that an elevator car (21a or 21b) is sent to a floor with the largest number of people (page 4 paragraph [0049]), where the number of people at each floor is determined via network video recorder (NVR 41) using images/videos captured from image capturing apparatuses (30) provided at each floor (page 2 paragraphs [0023], [0025]), as shown in FIG. 1. The image capturing apparatuses continually transmits images captured to the network video recorder according to a predetermined cycle (page 3 paragraph [0037]). One of ordinary skill in the art then would have found it obvious to continually analyze the received images from the image capturing apparatus in order to continually determine an occupant count at each location. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by…overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents….In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends.” KSR, 550 U.S. at __, 82 USPQ at 1396. Factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. See MPEP § 2141 III. Such continual analysis and determination would allow repositioning the first elevator car in response to an occupant count at another location becoming greater than a location which previously was determined to have a greatest occupant count. It should be noted that applicant’s claims do not require the first elevator car to have arrived at the first location before repositioning the first elevator car to the second location, nor do they describe whether passengers have boarded the first elevator car before repositioning to the second location. Therefore Thanagavelu modified by the teachings of Shinhoe properly renders obvious applicant’s limitation as required by the claim(s).
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 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 June 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights