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
The amendment filed 03/26/2026 has been entered. As directed, claims 1 has
been amended, no claim is added or canceled. Thus claims 1-10 and 12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Applicant respectfully disagrees with and traverses this rejection. The Office Action characterizes certain claim limitations as a mental processes and further asserts that the claimed "moving" and "recording" limitations are merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Respectfully, that analysis does not consider the claim as a whole, the role those limitations play in generating the claimed three-dimensional digital replica data record, or the Patent Office's own guidance regarding extra-solution activity and practical application.
At the outset, the claimed "moving" and "recording" limitations are not incidental or ancillary to the alleged abstract idea. Claim 1 requires "during at least one measuring run: moving an elevator car to each floor level of the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation at least once, and recording, with a measuring device, at least measurement data representing a floor height for each floor." Claim 1 then expressly requires using those recorded floor heights "for each of the plurality of the generic floor section component model data records and/or the generic shaft section component model data records" to replace the corresponding generic height characteristic, thereby generating the claimed three-dimensional digital replica data record. That installation-specific digital replica is then loaded as the simulation environment in which the elevator control unit is tested, and the resulting optimized parameter set is then used to operate the elevator control unit. Thus, the moving and recording steps are part of the core technological sequence recited by the claim. They are the specific physical operations by which installation-specific physical measurements are acquired from a real elevator installation and embedded into the digital replica that underlies the subsequent simulation and control process.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) confirms that the present limitations should not be dismissed as insignificant extra-solution activity. The MPEP explains that extra-solution activity refers to activity that is "incidental to the primary process or product" and "merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim." MPEP § 2106.05(g). That is not the case here. First, the claimed moving and recording limitations impose meaningful limits on the claim and are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (asking "whether the limitation is significant (i.e. it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention)"). Without the claimed measuring run and the recording of floor-height data for each floor, the claim would not produce the recited installation-specific digital replica because there would be no measured floor heights available to replace the generic height characteristics in the ordered component model data records. The measurement activity is therefore central to the claimed invention, not a token prelude.
Second, the limitations do not amount to mere "necessary data gathering and outputting" in the sense contemplated by MPEP § 2106.05(g). The MPEP asks "whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)." Id. Here, the claim is not directed to a generalized mental review for which any input data would do. Instead, the claim requires a particular physical acquisition process: moving the elevator car to each floor level of an actual elevator installation, recording floor-height- related measurement data for each floor with a measuring device, and then using those measured values to replace the generic height characteristics of specific generic floor-section and/or shaft- section component model data records. This is not simply collecting information for later observation or comparison. It is a concrete physical acquisition operation tightly coupled to the creation of the digital replica itself. The measured values are not merely "inputs"; they are used to transform generic component data records with predefined default values into an installation-specific model that can be loaded as the simulation environment.
Third, to the extent the Office considers whether the limitation is "well-known," MPEP § 2106.05(g) explains that this overlaps with the well-understood, routine, conventional inquiry and "should not be considered in the Step 2A Prong Two extra-solution activity analysis." Id. Even so, the present claim recites considerably more than generic data collection. It requires a defined physical measuring run of an actual elevator installation, followed by replacement of generic height characteristics in specific component model data records to create an installation-specific digital replica for simulation-based controller testing. Accordingly, under the very considerations identified in MPEP § 2106.05(g), the moving and recording limitations are not insignificant extra-solution activity.
This conclusion is also consistent with official USPTO eligibility guidance. The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that while some data-gathering steps may be treated as extra-solution activity at Step 2A, that characterization does not end the analysis, and the claim must still be evaluated as a whole for practical application and for whether it recites significantly more. 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55-56 (Jan. 7, 2019). The USPTO's October 2019 eligibility examples are instructive by analogy. In Example 45, the USPTO treated a limitation of "repeatedly obtain[ing] measurements of the temperature of a mold" as mere data gathering in claim 1 because the measurements were recited only at a high level of generality and merely supplied an input to a mathematical calculation. USPTO, October 2019 Update, Appendix 1, Example 45, claim 1 analysis, Step 2A Prong Two. But Example 45 also explains that such a limitation must be reconsidered in Step 2B and may cease to be insignificant where the claim recites a sufficiently meaningful technical implementation. Id., claim 3 analysis, Step 2B (explaining that the measurement limitation was "no longer considered to be insignificant" when performed using the unconventional ARCXY thermocouple). Applicant's claim presents a stronger case than Example 45's ineligible claim because the moving and recording limitations here do not merely gather values for later mathematical manipulation. Instead, they are part of the specific technical workflow by which installation-specific measured floor heights are incorporated into the generic component model data records to create the digital replica that is then loaded as the simulation environment for testing the elevator control unit and determining the optimized parameter set.
The Examiner's own statement of allowable subject matter further confirms that these measurement-related limitations are not peripheral. The Office Action states that claims 1-10 and 12 "would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 101." Office Action dated Oct. 31, 2025, "Allowable Subject Matter," item 8. The Office Action further explains that the prior art does not disclose or suggest the combination including "replacing the generic height characteristic with the floor height of the floor recorded with the measuring device during the measuring run" together with "loading a simulation environment based on the three- dimensional digital replica data record." Id., item 9. That statement is significant because it recognizes that the measured floor-height data, and their use in replacing the generic height characteristics of the component model data records, are part of the specific technical combination that distinguishes the claims over the prior art. In other words, the Office has already acknowledged in the patentability analysis that these are not peripheral data-gathering steps; they are central to the claimed technological implementation. The same features should not then be discounted under § 101 as merely insignificant pre-solution activity.
Nor is the final limitation of "operating the elevator control unit of the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation with the optimized parameter set" merely saying "apply it." The USPTO's own Example 45 recognizes that a claim may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when the information produced by the allegedly abstract processing is used to control operation of a physical industrial apparatus in a particular way. In Example 45, claim 2 was eligible because the controller used the calculated information to send control signals that opened the mold and ejected the molded polyurethane, and claim 4 was eligible because the comparison result was used to selectively heat or cool the mold to maintain temperature within a defined range. USPTO, October 2019 Update, Appendix 1, Example 45, claim 2 and claim 4 analyses, Step 2A Prong Two. The same principle applies here. Claim 1 does not stop at generating data or selecting a parameter set in the abstract. Rather, it requires using the simulation environment to determine an optimized parameter set for the elevator control unit and then operating the actual elevator control unit of the existing or modernized elevator installation with that optimized parameter set. This is a recited application of the claimed process to control a physical elevator installation, not a mere statement to "apply" a mental conclusion. As in Example 45, the claim employs the information obtained through the recited process to control operation of a real industrial system in a concrete way.
Accordingly, when claim 1 is considered as a whole, any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites physical measurement of an actual elevator installation, incorporation of those measured values into an installation-specific digital replica by replacing generic height characteristics in generic floor-section and/or shaft-section component model data records, loading that digital replica as a simulation environment associated with the elevator control unit, determining an optimized parameter set for that elevator control unit through testing in the simulation environment, and operating the actual elevator control unit with that optimized parameter set. This is a concrete industrial workflow directed to configuring and operating an elevator control system based on a digital replica derived from physical measurements of the actual installation. It is not merely a mental process, nor does it merely gather data and then say "apply it."
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed moving and recording limitations are not insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g), that the claimed method as a whole integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, and that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn.
(see Response filed 03/26/2026 [pages 7-11]).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
First, applicant argues that the claimed “moving” and “recording” limitations are not insignificant extra-solution activity because the recorded floor height data are later used to replace generic height characteristics in the component model data records and generate the three-dimensional digital replica data record. This argument is not persuasive because the claim broadly recites moving an elevator car to each floor level and recording measurement data with a measuring device, but does not recite any particular measurement technology, unconventional sensor arrangement, specific data acquisition technique, or technological improvement in the collection of the measurement data itself. Rather, the recorded floor height data are merely used as input values for the abstract idea steps (i.e., arranging, replacing, and determining). Further, the claimed “moving” and “recording” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not specify how the measuring device operates, how the measurements are processed, or how the elevator operation is technologically improved during the measuring run. Rather, the limitations merely use an elevator and a generic measuring device in their ordinary capacities to obtain floor height information for use in the abstract data modification and optimization process. Additionally, the specification discloses that the floor height h4 of the top floor level may be manually measured and recorded when it cannot be calculated or defined from the measuring run data (See instant application (clean), page.21, lines 8-13). Thus, the specification further demonstrates that the claimed measurement limitations do not require a particular technological implementation, particular automated measurement technology, specialized measurement technique sensor configuration, or unconventional measurement technique. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not impose a meaningful limit on the identified judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Second, applicant argues that MPEP § 2106.05(g) supports eligibility and the moving and recording steps impose meaningful limits because, without the measuring run and recorded floor height data, the installation-specific digital replica would not be produced. This argument is not persuasive because data gathering step may be used to perform the abstract idea, but that does not establish that the step integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The moving and recording limitations merely obtain the floor height values used in the abstract process of arranging component model data records and replacing generic height characteristics with measured values. Further, even when the claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements do not impose meaningful technological limits on the identified judicial exception. The claim recites collecting elevator related measurement data, accessing generic model data, modifying model data using the collected data, loading the resulting model as a simulation environment, determining an optimized parameter set, and operating the elevator control unit with that parameter set. These steps are recited at a high level of generality and do not provide a particular measurement technique, simulation technique, controller architecture, or control algorithm. The claim does not recite any particular technical manner by which the measuring run improves elevator technology or measurement technology.
Third, applicant argues that the measured values are not merely “inputs,” but are used to transform generic component data records with predefined default values into an installation-specific model that can be loaded as the simulation environment. This argument is not persuasive because the alleged “transformation” is a transformation of information in data records that replacing generic height characteristics with measured floor height values. The claim does not recite a transformation of a physical article, nor does it recite a specific technological improvement to the measuring device, programmable device, simulation technology, or elevator control unit.
Fourth, applicant argues that under MPEP 2106.05(g) and Example 45, the moving and recording limitations should not be treated as insignificant extra-solution activity because the limitations are allegedly part of a technical workflow for generating an installation-specific digital replica record and simulation environment. This argument is not persuasive. Although Example 45 explains that a data gathering limitation may be reconsidered at Step 2B, Example 45’s claim 1 still remained ineligible because the temperature measurement limitation merely obtained at a high level of generality for use in the judicial exception. Similarly, claim 1 broadly recites moving an elevator car and recording floor height data with a measuring device, but does not recite any particular unconventional measuring device, specialized sensor configuration, specific technical implementation, or other defined technological implementation for performing the measurement operation. Rather, the moving and recording limitations broadly obtain floor height information that is subsequently used in the abstract process of arranging model data records, replacing generic height characteristics with measured values, and determining an optimized parameter set. Unlike the eligible claims discussed in Example 45 (e.g., ARCXY thermocouples are known, mere knowledge of this type of thermocouple in the aeronautical industry does not make its use in an injection molding apparatus routine or conventional), claim 1 does not recite a specific unconventional measurement structure or other defined technological implementation that meaning fully limits the judicial exception. Accordingly, even when reconsidered under Step 2B, the moving and recording limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Fifth, applicant argues that the Office’s statement of allowable subject matter confirms that the measurement-related limitations are not peripheral because the prior art did not disclose or suggest the combination including replacing the generic height characteristic with the floor height recorded during the measuring run and loading a simulation environment based on the three-dimensional digital replica data record. This argument is not persuasive because patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 is a separate inquiry from subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A limitation may distinguish over the prior art and still fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Even if a combination of arranging, replacing, and simulation limitations may not be taught or suggested by the prior art, but it does not establish that the claim recites a specific technological improvement for purposes of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As explained in MPEP 2106.05 (I): “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.").” Therefore, even if the claimed combination distinguishes over the prior art, the distinguish alone is not sufficient to establish patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Sixth, applicant argues that the final step of “operating the elevator control unit … with the optimized parameter set” is not merely saying “apply it,” because the optimized parameter set is used to control operation of a physical industrial apparatus. This argument is not persuasive because the claim recites the operating step at a high level of generality and does not specify any particular control algorithm, new control architecture, unconventional control configuration, specific control signal, or particular technical manner by which the elevator control unit operates differently. The limitation merely applies the result of the abstract idea steps using an elevator control unit in its ordinary capacity. Rather, the limitation broadly states that the elevator control unit is operated with the optimized parameter set, without specifying how the optimized parameter set causes any particular technical improvement in elevator control functionality. Thus, the claim merely recites generic operation of the elevator control unit using the determined parameter set rather than a specific technological improvement to elevator control technology itself. Therefore, the limitation amounts to no more than applying the result of the abstract idea in a generic elevator control unit, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Accordingly, when claims are considered as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claim(s) 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to judicial exception an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated
the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019, as well as subsequent USPTO eligibility guidance updates,
and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 1-10 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Yes, Claims 12 is directed to A non-transitory computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of article of manufacture.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitations of “arranging in sequence one above the other in the vertical direction a plurality of the generic floor section component model data records and/or the generic shaft section component model data records corresponding to a number of floors in the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. A person, for example, is capable of observing and evaluating retrieved data representing floor or shaft model data record, and mentally arranging the data in sequence one above the other in the vertical direction corresponding to a number of floors in the elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
Claim 1, The limitations of “for each of the plurality of the generic floor section component model data records and/or the generic shaft section component model data records, replacing the generic height characteristic with the floor height of the floor recorded with the measuring device during the measuring run,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. A person, for example, is capable of observing and evaluating the measured floor height and previous retrieved data including generic floor height value, and mentally determine which value corresponds to each floor, and substitute the measured floor height data in place of the previous retrieved data. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
Claim 1, The limitations of “determining an optimized parameter set for the elevator control unit of the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation which is coordinated for operation in the simulation environment by testing the elevator control unit in the simulation environment” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. A person, for example, is capable of observing and evaluating the test results, mentally comparing different parameter values, and deciding which parameter set appears to provide the best or most suitable operation for the elevator control unit. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and reasoning processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the
limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the
“Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under
Prong I step 2A.
Claim 12 recites the similar elements as claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Therefore, claims 1 and 12 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1 and 12: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “A method for optimizing control data of an elevator control unit of an existing elevator installation or a modernized elevator installation, wherein the elevator control unit is connected to a programmable device,…” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions, which executed on a programmable device, cause the programmable device to carry out or control a method …” which is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitation of claim 1: “during at least one measuring run: moving an elevator car to each floor level of the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation at least once, and recording, with a measuring device at least measurement data representing a floor height for each floor, retrieving, from a computer storage medium, generic component model data records configured as a generic floor section component model data record and/or component model data records configured as a generic shaft section component model data record, wherein each of the generic component model data records defined by characterizing properties with predefined default values, wherein each generic component model data set comprises a generic height characteristic,” are merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering (i.e., receiving/accessing data), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Examiner note: the additional limitations broadly recite obtaining measured floor height data and accessing stored generic model data for later use in the abstract process of arranging data records, replacing generic height characteristics with measured values, and determining an optimized parameter set. The claim does not recite any particular measurement technology, unconventional sensor arrangement, specific data acquisition technique, specialized elevator control architecture, or technological improvement in the collection of the measurement data itself. Further, the claimed “moving” and “recording” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not specify how the measuring device operates, how the measurements are processed, or how the elevator operation is technologically improved during the measuring run. Rather, the limitations merely use an elevator and a generic mearing device in their ordinary capacities to obtain floor height information for use in the abstract data modification and optimization process. Additionally, the specification discloses that the floor height h4 of the top floor level may be manually measured and recorded when it cannot be calculated or defined from the measuring run data (See instant application (clean), page.21, lines 8-13). Thus, the specification further demonstrates that the claimed measurement limitations do not require a particular technological implementation, particular automated measurement technology, specialized measurement technique sensor configuration, or unconventional measurement technique. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not impose a meaningful limit on the identified judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the additional limitation of claim 1: “generating a three-dimensional digital replica data record of the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation” and “loading a simulation environment based on the three-dimensional digital replica data record, wherein the three-dimensional digital replica data record depicts and simulates the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation associated with the elevator control unit,” which are merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform generation and simulation function at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternately, the limitation of “loading a simulation environment … simulates …” merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., simulation environment). The claim does not recite any specific improvement to simulation technology, computer functionality, elevator control technology, or digital modeling techniques. Rather, the simulation environment is broadly recited as a generic technological environment in which the abstract idea is performed. Therefore, limiting an abstract idea to a simulation environment does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Further, the additional limitation of claim 1: “operating the elevator control unit of the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation with the optimized parameter set,” which is merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying elevator control unit to perform a controlling function based on the determined optimization parameter at high level of generality, is simply the act of instructing a controller to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a controller to the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner note: The limitation merely recites applying the result of the identified judicial exception using an elevator control unit in it ordinary capacity, and does not recite any particular control algorithm, new control architecture, unconventional control configuration, or specific technical manner by which the elevator control unit operates differently. Rather, the limitation broadly states that the elevator control unit is operated with the optimized parameter set, without specifying how the optimized parameter set causes any particular technical improvement in elevator control functionality. In other words, this additional limitation is recited at a high level of generality and does not specify any particular control algorithm, control architecture, or technological mechanism by which the optimized parameter set improves operation of the elevator control unit. Thus, the claim merely recites generic operation of the elevator control unit using the determined parameter set rather than a specific technological improvement to elevator control technology itself. Accordingly, the limitation amounts to no more than applying the result of the abstract idea in a generic elevator control unit, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 12 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 12: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …; ii. Performing repetitive calculations, … iii. Electronic recordkeeping, … (updating an activity log). iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,…
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); ii. Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); iv. A method of using advertising as an exchange or currency being applied or implemented on the Internet, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014); v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
The additional limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The steps of recording/retrieving data from a measure run and computer storage medium, generating a three-dimensional digital replica data record based on finalized/modified data by replacing certain data, loading a simulation environment for simulating an elevator installation associated with the elevator control unit, and operating the control unit based on the optimized parameter set merely describe generic computer and controller functions in their ordinary capacities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. The claim limitations do not recite any specific technological implementation that improves the configuration of the elevator control unit, the simulation process, or computer technology itself. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and simply apply known data-processing and control operations to execute the abstract idea. The use of a programmable controller or computer to perform conventional data collection, simulation, or operation is a routine practice that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014). See also Yu v. Apple Inc.: 1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). Therefore, the limitations amount to no more than instructing a generic computer or controller to perform conventional operations, which is insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” under Step 2B.
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 12 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1 and 12 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-10 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself (and/or mathematical operations) or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-10 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional digital replica data record of the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation is generated from the component model data records and stored in a storage medium, wherein each characterizing property is predefined by a default value, predetermined by a target value, or is determined by an actual value.” which is merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., stored in a storage medium) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a computer component to perform a generic generation and storage function after replacing certain data at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic functions, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more. - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 2 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein each floor section component model data record or each shaft section component model data record has predefined interfaces via which further interfaces of the component model data records are connected to one another and positioned relative to one another, the corresponding characterizing properties of each component model data record to be added being automatically replicated with the corresponding characterizing properties of the component model data record provided for the connection via the interface.”
The limitation specifies predefined interfaces for model data and automatic replication of characterizing properties between connected component model data record refer to claim 1 arranging model data; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (e.g., mentally setting up rules for data connection or correspondence). Further, as explained in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I): “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).” Therefore, the office finds that the claim 3 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one component model data record configured as an elevator cab component model data record and one component model data record configured as a suspension device component model data record is arranged in a virtual shaft formed by at least one shaft section component model data record, the characterizing properties of which include at least parameters that are changed during an execution of the method and are part of the optimized parameter set to be determined.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating component characteristic, mentally identify and compare parameters (e.g., speed limitation, acceleration and dispatch operation) to determine changing parameters or optimized values for the elevator control unit (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 4 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional digital replica data record is retrieved from a storage medium and is represented on a screen dynamically reproducing at least the floor heights of the floor levels as a virtual elevator installation in correct relationship to one another and a parameter set of the elevator control unit.” It merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., retrieve data) and data output (i.e., display) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).Therefore, the office finds that the claim 5 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein, via a graphical user interface, further component model data records of components of an elevator installation are selected from a database and via predefined interfaces are inserted into the three-dimensional digital replica data record.” It merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., inserted and selected) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 6 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “The method according to claim 6, wherein there is selection of components from among at least counterweight component model data records, guide rail component model data records, shaft door component model data records, cab door component model data records, drive component model data records and suspension device component model data records in different suspension device guiding options.” It merely recitations of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., selection) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 7 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the characterizing properties defined by the measurement data or customer-specific configuration data are provided with a designation so that the characterizing properties defined by the measurement data or customer-specific configuration data are distinguished from the characterizing properties with default values.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating characterizing properties defined/updated by measurement data or customer-specific configuration data, and mentally designating those properties as different from default values (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 4 is ineligible under 35 USC 101. Therefore, the office finds that the claim 8 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites “The method according to claim 8, wherein a three-dimensional digital replica data record component model data record replaced by a definitive component model data record by the characterizing properties provided with a designation being read out via an exchange routine, based on the characterizing properties designated from a database, possible definitive component model data records matching the characterizing properties of actually existing components of elevator installations are determined, and a replacing component model data record is additionally selected where appropriate by manual inputs.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating component model data, mentally comparing the characterizing properties of existing components with stored model data, and determining which component model matches the desired properties, and mentally selecting or updating the corresponding record (e.g., selecting an appropriate replacement component) (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 9 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the optimized parameter set is determined in the simulation environment using an optimization routine according to specifiable quality criteria.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example a person is capable of observing and evaluating test result, comparing the results against specifiable quality criteria such as ride comfort, acceleration, or travel time, and mentally determining which parameter set best satisfies the criteria (The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the office finds that the claim 10 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under
35 U.S.C 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, the closest prior arts found, Haapaniemi (US20150158699A1), discloses a method uses scanning measurements of elevator installation, compares them with a database of known component data, identifies the matching components, and stores the identifications and geometric data in memory for the particular elevator. Morita (US 5892190A), discloses a computing system comprising a transport system model section for simulating (e.g. estimating) a transport system operating process and outputting a simulation result, a simulation error minimizing section for correcting the simulation result by adjusting one or more of the transport system model parameters and a post processing section for further processing the adjusted transport system model parameter and operable to output one or more physical characteristics of a specified transport system component. Finschi US7314117B2, discloses a method for the operation of an elevator installation, wherein the operating parameters for achieving a desired performance are determined by simulation of the operation of the elevator installation, the operating parameter and the desired performance are included in a protocol, the elevator installation is operated with the operating parameter, the actual performance produced by the elevator installation is measured and the actual performance is compared with the desired performance. Kou CN106875474A, discloses virtual elevator system, can realize running elevator under virtual environment and simulation multiplies Ladder, simulation editor's debugging elevator model, real-time update elevator model, and without that by elevator device hypostazation, can be well adapted for The change of user's request, facilitates user to design and visit elevator. Zechlin US20220004671A1, discloses an arrangement for creating a digital building model for an existing building, wherein location points in the building are specified by referencing official anchor points outside the building for a reference floor of the building; wherein machine-readable markers are installed in the reference floor at the specified location points; wherein the markers in the reference floor are read in by way of a correspondingly configured mobile reading device (scanning device), wherein, on the basis of the location position of the read-in markers, the geometry of the reference floor is compensated for drift; wherein a digital volume model is created for the rooms in the reference floor in a suitable notation; and wherein the digital volume model of the reference floor is used as reference volume model during the creation of digital volume models for substantially identical floors of the building. Simcik US20200109025A1, discloses determining optimized configuration (dispatching) parameters for operating the one or more elevators based at least in part on analyzing the usage data; and wherein the controller is configured to receive the determined optimized configuration parameters from the server and the controller is configured to operate the one or more elevators based at least in part on the determined optimized configuration. Yoneda US4367811A, discloses elevator car is controlled on the basis of elevator car positions obtained through the counting of distance pulses provided in proportion to the distance travelled by the car and floor height data indicative of the heights of individual floors, the distance pulses are counted by moving the car at a low speed from the lowest floor to the highest floor, and the count at the time of the actuation of a floor position detector, which is actuated when the car passes by each floor, is stored as the floor height value of that floor in a RAM (Random Access Memory).
However, In light of record taken as a whole, applicant's method claim 1 and article of manufacture claim 12 are considered to be patentable distinct over the prior arts. In particular, the prior arts do not disclose, teach or suggest in combination of limitations “retrieving, from a computer storage medium, generic component model data records configured as a generic floor section component model data record and/or component model data records configured as a generic shaft section component model data record, wherein each of the generic component model data records defined by characterizing properties with predefined default values, wherein each generic component model data set comprises a generic height characteristic; arranging in sequence one above the other in the vertical direction a plurality of the generic floor section component model data records and/or the generic shaft section component model data records corresponding to a number of floors in the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation; and for each of the plurality of the generic floor section component model data records and/or the generic shaft section component model data records, replacing the generic height characteristic with the floor height of the floor recorded with the measuring device during the measuring run; loading a simulation environment based on the three-dimensional digital replica data record, wherein the three-dimensional digital replica data record depicts and simulates the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation associated with the elevator control unit” as disclosed in claims 1 and 12.
Claims 2-10 are allowed as being dependent from allowed claim 1.
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 whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571)272-3652. 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.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights