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 received 11/28/2025 with respect to the amended claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-7 as set forth below in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first 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.
4. Claims 1-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as containing 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the recited limitation "output the total power apparatus-specific static power consumption model" (claim 1) is not described or supported by the specification of the instant application. Neither the drawings nor the specification discusses or shows that the monitoring equipment (e.g., 110 of Fig. 1) outputs the apparatus-specific static power consumption model itself. The step 306 of Fig. 3 shows only that the calculated total power is outputted. For purposes of examination, the examiner comprehends the claims based on his best interpretations to the phrases in question.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1, 6-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA (JP 2013052943 A, machine translation) in view of Feng (WO 2017097261 A1, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, YAMADA discloses a remote monitoring equipment (10 Fig. 1) for an apparatus, which is an elevator (Abstract), the equipment comprising: a data storage (111-115 of Fig. 1) comprising apparatus-specific static power consumption models, a static power consumption model among the apparatus-specific static power consumption models modelling power consumption and being parametrized with apparatus-specific parameters (para. 0016-0019, 0022, 0024, 0029); and processing circuitry configured to: receive controller events relating to the apparatus (para. 0025, 0029); determine from the controller events a distance to travel, a time and a load (para. 0005, 0025, 0029, 0033, 0038, 0040; note, the “a distance to travel” can be determined based on the rated speed and the travelling time); calculate, using the apparatus-specific static power consumption model of the apparatus and the distance to travel, the time and the load, a total power consumed by the apparatus (para. 0025, 0029, 0032-0033, 0036-0043); and output the calculated total power (para. 0030, 0032-0033).
YAMADA is silent on: wherein the apparatus-specific static power consumption model models shifting net mass during travel of a car of the elevator.
Feng discloses an apparatus-specific static power consumption model (page 29, 7th – 9th paragraph; page 37, 3rd paragraph; page 52-53, “Embodiment 5: This embodiment includes the following steps 5A1, 5A2”) which models shifting net mass during travel of a car of an elevator (page 29, 7th paragraph: “the related force further includes a shifting resistance”; page 30, 5th paragraph: “the deformation mode of the shift resistance fa includes …”; see also pages 38 and 42, discussion of “the shifting resistance”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Feng’s teaching of modelling shifting net mass during travel of a car of the elevator to YAMADA to arrive the claimed invention by providing an apparatus-specific static power consumption model that is capable of simulating the elevator's net mass shifting events. Doing so would be beneficial to improve the calculation accuracy and monitoring accuracy (Feng, page 29, 7th – 9th paragraph; page 32, 6th paragraph; page 37, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, YAMADA discloses: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to store to the data storage received controller events with time information (see discussion of sections 111-115 of Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, YAMADA discloses: wherein at least one of the apparatus-specific static power consumption models is a precalculated three-dimensional matrix, the dimensions being a distance to travel, a load and a time (see discussion for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, YAMADA discloses: wherein the apparatus-specific parameters include one or more of parameters from a group of parameters comprising a speed (para. 0013), an acceleration (para. 0027), a jerk (para. 0027), a travel distance between floors (para. 0025), a maximum travel distance (para. 0018-0019, 0025), a nominal load (para. 0020), a motor type (para. 0002, 0018), and a drive type (para. 0017-0018).
YAMADA is silent on: wherein said group includes: a roping, a rope type, a cable type, a motor resistance, and drive efficiency.
Examiner takes official notice that apparatus-specific parameters for traction type of elevators including: a roping, a rope type (steel ropes), a cable type (belt or rope), a motor resistance, and drive efficiency, etc. are all well-understood and a conventional practice in the art. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these well-understood and conventional apparatus-specific parameters into the YAMADA’s system/method to arrive the claimed invention depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the benefits of such a modification were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, YAMADA discloses: wherein the processing circuitry comprising at least one processor (e.g., 121); and at least one memory (11) including computer program code (para. 0025); the at least one memory and the computer program (para. 0025-0026).
Regarding claims 10, and 15-17, YAMADA discloses the claimed invention (see discussion for claims 1, 6-7 and 9 above).
7. Claims 2-5, 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA in view of Feng, and further in view of Tyni et al. (US 6857506 B1).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the combination of YAMADA/Feng is silent on: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate predictions of the total power and configured to output the predictions of the total power.
Tyni teaches a method and device for calculating predictions of a total power consumed by an elevator apparatus (col. 2, lines 1-4 and 45-48; col 3, lines 45-49; col. 4, lines 21-25; see also claim 1: determining total energy consumption for possible elevator allocation based on data generated from said files); and outputting the predictions of the total power (claim 1: allocating elevators based on said minimization of energy consumption).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination of YAMADA/Feng with the teaching of Tyni to arrive the claimed invention by providing an energy consumption file for each car for describing energy consumption which occurs during each trip of the elevator from each floor and to each of the other floors with different loads and predicting total energy consumption for possible elevator allocation based on data generated from said files. Doing so would allow the energy consumption resulting from serving all the active calls is minimized (Tyni, Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of YAMADA/Feng is silent on: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to detect a peak or drop in the predictions and send information on the peak or drop to a building management system for mitigating the change in the power consumption. But the teaching of Tyni includes: detecting a peak or drop in the predictions (col. 4, lines 21-25).
Tyni is silent on: sending information on the peak or drop to a building management system for mitigating the change in the power consumption.
However, examiner takes official notice that sending information on possible faults that increase energy consumption for an elevator apparatus to a building management system for mitigating the change in the power consumption is well-understood and a conventional practice in the art. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of YAMADA/Feng/Tyni to arrive the claimed invention by incorporating such a well-understood and conventional practice. It has been held that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the benefits of such a modification were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 3-4, 12-14 and 18-20, YAMADA does not mention but Tyni teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate energy consumption of the apparatus by integrating the total power over a time the energy consumption is to be determined (col. 3, lines 15-24; see also claim 1: determining total energy consumption for possible elevator allocation based on data generated from said files …); wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to send the total power or the predictions of the total power or the energy consumption or the predicted energy consumption to a building management system (claim 1: determining a preferred allocation of elevators based on minimization of energy consumption data; and allocating elevators based on said minimization of energy consumption). As such, the combination of YAMADA and Tyni renders the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
8. 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.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANCHUN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5981. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM EST 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 on (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.
/JIANCHUN QIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837