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 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 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication to Banno et al. (US 2016/214832) in view of the US patent application publication to Tschuemperlin et al. (US 2007/0246306) and that which is well known in the art.
In terms of claim 15, Banno et al. teaches a method for determining multiple absolute car positions of an elevator car (12) within a shaft (1) of an elevator arrangement (see Figure 1) using a smart device (24) having a sensor, the method comprising the steps of: displacing the elevator car (12) along the shaft (1) during a learning procedure, or run, with the smart device (24) being attached at a predetermined position (i.e. the roof) at the elevator car (12) (see paragraph [0048]); detecting localizing characteristics (22) (see paragraphs [0030] and [0049], wherein 22 indicates position information, or floor alignment positions, indicative of the claimed localizing characteristics) at each of multiple locations in the shaft (1) during the learning procedure using the sensor of the smart device (24) (see step of detecting paragraph [0048]), the localizing characteristics (22) each indicating an associated absolute sensed position (i.e. the position of each plate 22 defining the position of each of the floors) within the shaft (1); communicating information indicating the absolute sensed positions detected during the learning procedure from the smart device (24) to an elevator controller (5, 6) of the elevator arrangement (see Figure 1, and step of communicating in paragraph [0049]); and correlating each of the absolute sensed positions detected (position of the plates 22, to multiple absolute car positions) during the learning procedure to one of the multiple absolute car positions and storing correlation data derived from the correlating (see paragraph [0049], apparatus 6 stores the detected position information of the floor position plates 22, and paragraph [0072], apparatus 6 detects and stores the position of the car (12) when the floor sensor 24 detects each of the floor position plates 22).
Banno et al. fails however to explicitly teach the smart device as portable, temporarily attachable, or releasable.
Tschuemperlin et al. teaches a method for determining floor associations of a plurality of operating units during a learning procedure of an elevator arrangement (20)
using a portable smart device (35) comprising a sensor, wherein the portable smart device (35) is configured to be (see paragraph [0029]): - temporarily attached at a predetermined position (here on the roof) at the elevator cabin (30) (see figure 1) prior to the learning procedure; - used during the learning procedure; and - released from the fixation at the elevator cabin (30) after completion of the learning procedure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, to provide the smart device (24) of Banno et al. as portable, attachable and releasable, in order to render the method disclosed in Banno et al. more convenient by releasably attaching the device to the elevator cabin (12) as disclosed by Tschuemperlin et al., given both the sensor (24) of Banno et al. and the sensor/transmitter (35) of Tschuemperlin et al. communicate position data that has been ascertained (see references cited for Banno et al. above and Tschuemperlin et al., paragraph [0023]).
Further, it would have been obvious to make the device portable, since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952).
Still further, it would have been obvious to make the device temporarily attachable and also releasable, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179, and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) .
As for claim 16, see Banno et al. paragraph [0035]. Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
As for claim 17, the use of a camera represents only an arbitrary choice made by one of ordinary skill in the type of optical sensor used for the portable smart device. Cameras are well-known optical devices in the art, and prevalently used.
As for claims 18 and 19, Banno et al. teaches the characteristics as plates (22). Therefore, obviousness stands.
As for claims 20 and 21, Banno et al. teaches each of the localizing characteristics, i.e. each of the plates (22), defines a particular floor; therefore each of these characteristics is implicitly and indirectly defining the position of a shaft door and the position of a shaft door sill.
As for claim 22, neither Banno et al. or Tschuemperlin et al. explicitly teach the use of a holder. However, the smart device must be attached by some means, therefore providing a holder, fixing or attachment means would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and would make the releasable attachment easier and more convent. Such use of holder would further maintain the device (35) Tschuemperlin et al in position during the learning procedure. Therefore, obviousness stands.
As for claim 23, neither Banno et al. or Tschuemperlin et al. explicitly teach positioning the smart device (within a holder) relative to a sill of the elevator car. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the smart device wherever functionally desired, given the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality of the arrangement or that such an arrangement solves any stated problem and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the device positioned in any desired configuration. Furthermore having the smart device positioned relative to the sill appears to produce no new mechanical effect or advantage considered to constitute “invention” whereby there is a new and unexpected result which would have patentable significance. Repositioning a portable and releasable smart device to any desired location would have been obvious as long as it does not impede the intended functionality of the device.
Still further, positioning a sensor near or on the sill of an elevator is known in the art, as can be seen in Ginsberg et al. (US 2019/0062106) (installed on sill, paragraph [0081]) and Coste et al. (6,701,277) (mounted in fixed relation to the sill, column 5, lines 11-15).
In terms of claims 24, 25 and 27, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of method claim 15, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of apparatus/arrangement and program/computer readable medium claims 24, 25 and 27, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus, and the method is inseparable from the instructions for implementing the method.
In terms of claim 28, Banno et al., Tschuemperlin et al. and that which is well known in the art, again teach the similar elements as discussed above in claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The above rejection has been slightly amended to clarify the Examiner’s interpretation of the applied references, and to address the Applicant’s arguments.
For example, Applicant argues that Banno doers not teach “detecting localizing characteristics at each of multiple locations in the shaft during the learning procedure using the sensor of the portable smart device, the localizing characteristics each indicating as associated absolute sensed position within the shaft”. The sensor (24) of Banno detects floor position plates (22), at multiple locations in the shaft (see Figure 1), which indicate absolute, or unchanging, floor alignment positions, correlating to the localizing characteristics (see references cited above and paragraph [0030]).
Further, Applicant argues that Tschuemperlin does not teach a sensor, and therefore cannot be combined with Banno. Tschuemperlin is merely being used to show the commonality and ease of providing a temporary, or releasably attachable device to an elevator system, in combination with the case law provided. However, as stated above, the device (35) of Tschuemperlin is similar to the sensor (24) of Banno in that they both communicate position data that has been ascertained or sensed, and therefore, the positioning of such devices is dependent upon what data is to be ascertained, the configuration of the system, the individual elevator to perform the learning run, and the desires of the user. This correlates with the claimed “predetermined position”, wherein Banno teaches a predetermined set position and the position within Tschuemperlin is dependent upon the data to be ascertained and transmitted, and the current car (30) participating in the learning travel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the Notice of References Cited provided by the Examiner.
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 Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 PM.
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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 11/29/2025