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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/18/2025 has been entered. As directed, claims 1 and 2 have
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, Step 2A, Prong one in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
… As amended, Claim 1 recites a very particular methodology for generating a three-dimensional digital replica data record of the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation that involves physically measuring floor heights with by moving a measuring device between floors and modifying generic component model data sets based on the measured heights. Applicant respectfully submits that this cannot be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, amended Claim 1 is patent eligible under Alice Step 2A.
Further, even if Claim 1 is found to be directed to an abstract idea, the Claim recites significantly more in outlining a very specific set of steps for generating the three-dimensional digital replica data record. These include:
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;
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.
Applicant respectfully submits that this specificity amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
Lastly, Claim 1 is amended to recite "operating the elevator control unit of the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation with the optimized parameter set." While this feature was discussed at the interview and the Examiner indicated that this would not overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Applicant respectfully disagrees. This produces a real world effect by controlling the operation of an elevator. This is similar to the claims found to be patent eligible in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a mathematical process was used to control a rubber molding press in the real world.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections under 35 USC 101 be withdrawn.
(see Response filed 08/18/2025 [pages 9-10]).
With respect to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do recite a mental process.
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” 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” and “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), covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Please refer to the current Office Action for a detailed explanation of this analysis. Therefore, the limitation is direct to a “mental process”, similar to the comparison steps in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In particular, The limitation “operating the elevator control unit of the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation with the optimized parameter set” merely recites generic operation of an elevator control unit using the optimized parameter set. The claim does not describe how the elevator control unit is technologically improved to achieve any enhanced performance or a specific control effect. The elevator control unit is recited only at a high level of generality, performing the conventional function of operating the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation. No specific algorithm, new control architecture, or unconventional control configuration is disclosed in the claim. Therefore, The claim does not provide a specific technological improvement to the elevator control unit technology itself.
Further, the additional limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The steps of recording/retrieving data from measure run and computer storage medium, generating a three-dimensional digital replica data based on finalized data, loading a simulation environment for simulating elevator associated with the elevator control, and operating control unit based on the optimized parameter merely describe generic computer/controller functions 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 controller or programmable 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, claim 1 does not integrated judicial exception into a practical application and does not amounts to significantly more. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,” pages 7-9, filed
08/18/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1 and 12, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 1 and 12 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “recording, with a measuring device at least measurement data representing a floor height for each floor” should read as “recording, with a measuring device, at least measurement data representing a floor height for each floor”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 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), covers performance of the limitation in the 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 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), covers performance of the limitation in the 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 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), covers performance of the limitation in the 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 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 are mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements.
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,” which are merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering (i.e., recording/retrieving data) activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into 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 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 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).
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 generic operation of an elevator control unit using the optimized parameter set. The claim does not describe how the elevator control unit is technologically improved to achieve any enhanced performance or a specific control effect. The elevator control unit is recited only at a high level of generality, performing the conventional function of operating the existing elevator installation or the modernized elevator installation. No specific algorithm, new control architecture, or unconventional control configuration is disclosed in the claim. Therefore, The claim does not provide a specific technological improvement to the elevator control unit technology itself.
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)); …
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 measure run and computer storage medium, generating a three-dimensional digital replica data based on finalized data, loading a simulation environment for simulating elevator associated with the elevator control, and operating control unit based on the optimized parameter merely describe generic computer/controller functions 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 generation 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). 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). 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to YI HAO 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