DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-6 as set forth below in this Office action.
Applicant argues that (REMARKS, p.3):
PNG
media_image1.png
287
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Examiner further recognizes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a second reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, it is deemed that both Schach and FRESCAS are pertained to the same field of endeavor, i.e., providing a front-end user interface for the user to interact with a back-end electronic system (Schach, para. 0005-0010; FRESCAS, para. 0002). The Examiner considers that Schach teaches such a front-end user interface including a screen system (Schach, para. 0055), but is silent on: said screen system is a touch-sensitive screen system which includes a substantially smooth touch surface and is configured to respond with haptically perceptible feedback to a touch of the touch surface by a passenger, wherein: the haptically perceptible feedback is triggered upon a touch of the touch surface of the touch-sensitive screen system, and the touch-sensitive screen only registers an input when the touch exceeds a threshold pressure or force such that the haptically perceptible feedback is triggered only when the touch exceeds the threshold pressure or force. The Examiner asserts that the user interface taught by FRESCAS remedies this deficiency (see detailed discussion of FRESCAS set forth in section 6 below). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FRESCAS’ touch-sensitive screen system to each of Schach’s elevator operation device to arrive the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 10 and 12 of the present application. Doing so would improve the feasibility and applicability of the Schach invention such as enhancing user interaction by simulating the sense of touch, allowing users to perceive information beyond visual and auditory cues (FRESCAS, Abstract; para. 0004-0009). It is further deemed that one of ordinary skill in the art would conceive and apply such modification as an intended use of the FRESCAS’ invention without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances, and the skilled person would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable for significantly improving the performance and/or functionality of user’s interaction with, e.g., the elevator operation device of Schach. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument in this regard is considered to be unpersuasive.
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed by the detailed action as set forth below in this Office Action, thus are deemed unpersuasive as well.
Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 1 and 3-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, it is deemed that the newly added limitation in pending claims 1, 10 and 12:
PNG
media_image2.png
247
957
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is not described or supported by the specification of the instant application. Neither the drawings nor the specification discusses or shows: “such that the haptically perceptible feedback is triggered even when the touch is less than the threshold pressure or force and the input is triggered only when the touch exceeds the threshold pressure or force”. Applicant’s originally filed Spec. (US 20220242695 A1) explicitly states: “… to identify input of an elevator call when the touch reaches a specified pressure force” ([0011]); “the control device 58 is configured such that it only registers the measured force as a triggering force if the measured force reaches a specified threshold value; only then is the touch considered to be deliberate pressing or deliberate input” ([0044]). None of the embodiments set forth in the Spec. describes that: the haptically perceptible feedback can be triggered by certain user-induced event “even when the touch is less than the threshold pressure or force”.
It is held that every feature recited in the claims must be supported by the drawings or the specification. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner comprehends the claims based on his best interpretations to the limitation in question.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 1 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schach et al. (US 20180111792 A1) in view of FRESCAS et al. (US 20180120938 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 12, Schach discloses an elevator system (Fig. 1), and a method for practicing the system, comprising: an elevator controller (118); an elevator car (103) which can be moved, in a manner controlled by the elevator controller, between floors, wherein a car call device which is communicatively connected to the elevator controller and configured for inputting a destination floor is arranged in the elevator car (by inherency, there must be a car call device arranged in the elevator car 203 Fig. 2 through which the passengers can access car call services within the car); elevator operation devices (hall call panel 229 Fig. 2) which are communicatively connected to the elevator controller (103) and are arranged on the floors for the input of an elevator call (para. 0005-0010, 0038, 0053, 0055), wherein each elevator operation device comprises a screen system (para. 0055: “the virtual hall call panel systems of the present disclosure can be used to provide more than just arrows for calling an elevator car. For example, as noted, the virtual hall call panel systems can be used to automatically switch to and/or display an “out of service mode” in case of specific, predetermined events. For example, an automatic display change (e.g., from displaying up/down arrows to “out of service”) can occur”); wherein the elevator controller is configured to actuate an elevator operation device in a normal operation mode of the elevator system with a first control signal such that the screen system displays at least one call symbol on a user interface, and wherein the elevator controller is configured to actuate an elevator operation device in an emergency operation mode of the elevator system with a second control signal such that the screen system displays an emergency operation message on the user interface (para. 0055).
Schach does not mention explicitly: wherein each elevator operation device comprises a touch-sensitive screen system which includes a substantially smooth touch surface and is configured to respond with haptically perceptible feedback to a touch of the touch surface by a passenger, wherein: the haptically perceptible feedback is triggered upon a touch of the touch surface of the touch-sensitive screen system, and the touch-sensitive screen only registers an input when the touch exceeds a threshold pressure or force such that the haptically perceptible feedback is triggered only when the touch exceeds the threshold pressure or force.
FRESCAS discloses a touch-sensitive screen system including a substantially smooth touch surface (e.g., a touch screen 120 in Fig. 1) and is configured to respond with haptically perceptible feedback to a touch of the touch surface by a user (para. 0005, 0008), wherein: the haptically perceptible feedback (para. 0009: “This localized haptic feedback may be delivered by means of static deflection, as buttons that pop out in the display, or by vibration using the cantilever actuator”) is triggered upon a touch of the touch surface of the touch-sensitive screen system, and the touch-sensitive screen only registers an input when the touch exceeds a threshold pressure or force such that the haptically perceptible feedback is triggered only when the touch exceeds the threshold pressure or force (para. 0018, 0037: “Using this equation, the threshold voltage V.sub.T of the transistor 210 may be determined and compared to a previous determination and/or a look-up table to determine changes in the threshold voltage V.sub.T and determine whether a pressure or force has been applied to the cantilever actuator 230”; see also para. 0052).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate FRESCAS’ touch-sensitive screen system to each elevator operation device of Schach to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would improve the feasibility and applicability of the Schach invention such as enhancing user interaction by simulating the sense of touch, allowing users to perceive information beyond visual and auditory cues (FRESCAS, Abstract; para. 0004-0009).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Schach does not mention explicitly: wherein the touch-sensitive screen system comprises an actuator which, when actuated by a control voltage, causes a surface of the screen system to vibrate, the vibration comprising the haptically perceptible feedback, and wherein the touch-sensitive screen system comprises a force measuring device and a control device, the force measuring device being configured to measure the pressure or force with which the passenger presses on the touch surface of the touch-sensitive screen system.
The teaching of FRESCAS includes: wherein the touch-sensitive screen system comprises an actuator which, when actuated by a control voltage, causes a surface of the screen system to vibrate, the vibration comprising the haptically perceptible feedback (para. 0047), and wherein the touch-sensitive screen system comprises a force measuring device and a control device, the force measuring device being configured to measure the pressure or force with which the user presses on the touch surface of the touch-sensitive screen system (para. 0049-0052).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the functionalities of touch-sensitive screen system taught by FRESCAS into Schach to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would provide improvements in user input and user feedback to improve capability of electronic devices to interact with users (FRESCAS, para. 0004-0009).
Regarding claim 4, Schach discloses: wherein the elevator operation device comprises a communication device for communication with the elevator controller, and a central control and processing device which communicates with the communication device, and is communicatively connected to the screen system, the central control and processing device being configured to: in the normal operation mode, when actuated by the elevator controller by a first control signal, actuate the screen system such that the user interface displays the at least one call symbol, and in the emergency operation mode, when actuated by the elevator controller by a second control signal, actuate the screen system such that the screen system displays the emergency operation message on the user interface (para. 0055).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Schach discloses: wherein the elevator operation device comprises an audio device for a voice message, the elevator operation device being configured to generate the voice message in connection with the haptically perceptible feedback (para. 0051).
Regarding claim 6, Schach discloses: wherein the elevator controller is configured to actuate an elevator operation device in the normal operation mode such that the screen system displays at least one information field in addition to the at least one call symbol (para. 0055), the screen system being configured to respond with the haptically perceptible feedback (e.g., audio feedback) when a passenger touches the at least one information field (para. 0051).
Regarding claim 7, Schach discloses: wherein an information field of the at least one information field displays information regarding a specified floor, an elevator operation device being configured, when the passenger touches the information field, to generate the haptically perceptible feedback and a voice message assigned to the information field (para. 0051, 0055).
Schach does not mention explicitly: if the pressure force is equal to a specified threshold value, to register a request to travel in the direction of the specified floor.
The teaching of FRESCAS includes: wherein the touch-sensitive screen system comprises a force measuring device and a control device, the force measuring device being configured to measure a pressure force with which the user presses on the touch surface of the touch-sensitive screen system, and the control device being configured to register the measured force as a triggering force only when the measured pressure force reaches a specified threshold value (para. 0049-0052).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the functionalities of touch-sensitive screen system taught by FRESCAS into Schach and configure Schach’s controller such that, if the pressure force is equal to a specified threshold value, the controller registers a request to travel in the direction of the specified floor, as an intended use of the teaching of FRESCAS. Doing so would provide improvements in user input and user feedback to improve capability of electronic devices to interact with users (FRESCAS, para. 0007-0008).
Regarding claim 8, Schach does not mention explicitly: wherein the elevator operation device comprises a reader, communicatively connected to the elevator controller, for credentials of the passenger, the elevator operation device being configured to authorize the input of an elevator call when the credentials are valid.
Examiner takes official notice that a touch-sensitive screen comprising a reader for credentials of a user (e.g., a touchscreen fingerprinting for authentication such as using a device's touchscreen as a biometric scanner to verify a user's identity) is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate those well-known features into Schach to arrive the claimed invention. It has been held that the mere application of known technologies to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Schach discloses: wherein the at least one call symbol is a direction of travel symbol (para. 0055).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Schach does not mention explicitly: wherein the screen system is also configured to respond with the haptically perceptible feedback when the passenger touches the at least one call symbol and to identify input of an elevator call when the touch reaches a specified pressure force.
The teaching of FRESCAS includes: wherein the screen system is also configured to respond with the haptically perceptible feedback when the user touches at least one localized area of the screen (para. 0035, 0039, 0042) and to identify input of the user when the touch reaches a specified pressure force (para. 0049-0052). As such, the combination of Schach and FRESCAS renders the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANCHUN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5981. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571)270-7938. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIANCHUN QIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837