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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 12, 3, 14, 4, 15, 5, 16, 6, 17, 8-11 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEOKTAE KR20220009079A in a view of HERKEL CN 110775755B .
Regarding claim 1, SEOKTAE discloses
A building system (Fig. 1 comprising: a robot-use elevator system having an elevator car (Item 110, EV1 to EV 8) moveable along an elevator shaft (Inherently present to move the car) of a building;
a controller (Item 130) configured to receive requests associated with the robot-use elevator system and configured to control operation of the rocot-use elevator system; and a robot (Item 100) configured in communication with the controller and configured to perform actions within the building, the robot configured to travel within the building in the elevator car, wherein the elevator car is operated using parameters outside limits (Robot-only movement) intended for human use of the elevator car;
PNG
media_image1.png
813
1063
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
123
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
SEOKTAE does not explicitly say
“wherein the parameters comprises at least one of elevator travel speed, elevator acceleration rate, elevator deceleration rate, elevator jerk, and elevator leveling at a landing”. However, SEOKTAE discloses the robot moves to the target floor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add either speed or acceleration rate as the parameters in SEOKTAE’s teachings to operate the elevator within safe limit when moved to the target floor.
PNG
media_image3.png
161
879
media_image3.png
Greyscale
SEOKTAE does not disclose but HERKEL discloses and wherein the robot is configured to, in response to an anomaly detection of an elevator system of the building, place a hall or car call via an elevator dispatch, and travel to a designated location to at least one of inspect or verify the anomaly using a sensor assembly configured to at least one of detect or monitor systems and components associated with the elevator system of the building (It should be noted that the robot is used to check the elevator system 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
565
1141
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
772
1129
media_image5.png
Greyscale
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the robot, in response to an anomaly detection of an elevator system of the building, place a hall or car call via an elevator dispatch, and travel to a designated location to at least one of inspect or verify the anomaly using a sensor assembly configured to at least one of detect or monitor systems and components associated with the elevator system of the building as disclosed by HERKEL in SEOKTAE’s teachings to stop the operation of the elevator car when necessary.
PNG
media_image6.png
93
1113
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, SEOKTAE discloses
A method of controlling a robot-use elevator system comprising: receiving a request for elevator service from a robot at a controller; dispatching an elevator car of the robot-use elevator system to a location associated with the request for elevator service; operating the elevator car using parameters outside limits intended for human use of the elevator car,
wherein the parameters comprises at least one of elevator travel speed, elevator acceleration rate, elevator deceleration rate, elevator jerk, and elevator leveling at a landing. (See claim 1 rejection for detail).
wherein the request for elevator service is associated with a detection of an anomaly of an elevator system of a building, and wherein the request for elevator service comprises a hall call or car call received at the controller from the robot via an elevator dispatch, carrying the robot within the elevator car to a location associated with the detection of the anomaly and at least one of detecting or monitoring of systems and components associated with the elevator system of the building with a sensor assembly of the robot to inspect and/or verify the anomaly (It should be noted that the robot is used to check the elevator system 2).
PNG
media_image7.png
483
975
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
667
975
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect an anomaly of an elevator system of a building, and wherein the request for elevator service comprises a hall call or car call received at the controller from the robot via an elevator dispatch, carrying the robot within the elevator car to a location associated with the detection of the anomaly and at least one of detecting or monitoring of systems and components associated with the elevator system of the building with a sensor assembly of the robot to inspect and/or verify the anomaly as disclosed by HERKEL in SEOKTAE’s teachings to stop the operation of the elevator car when necessary.
PNG
media_image9.png
81
975
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 14, SEOKTAE discloses
, wherein the parameters comprises at least one of climate control within the elevator car and lighting within the elevator car.
PNG
media_image10.png
132
1046
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4 and 15, SEOKTAE discloses
, wherein the elevator car is a robot-use elevator car configured to transport robots and not humans.
PNG
media_image11.png
90
1102
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 16, SEOKTAE discloses
, wherein the robot-use elevator car is defined by features not intended for human use, and does not include at least one of a car operating panel, an in-car display, an in-car speaker, or an in-car microphone for voice communication (SEOKTAE does not disclose in-car microphone).
PNG
media_image12.png
70
853
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6 and 17, SEOKTAE discloses
, wherein the robot-use elevator car is sized for carrying the robot and not humans [0051].
PNG
media_image13.png
80
975
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, SEOKTAE discloses
, wherein the controller is configured to verify that a request for use of the elevator car is made by the robot as compared to a human request.
PNG
media_image14.png
108
1089
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, SEOKTAE discloses
, wherein the controller is configured to verify that no humans are present in the elevator car prior to causing movement thereof.
PNG
media_image15.png
465
1113
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, SEOKTAE discloses
, wherein the robot-use elevator system does not include a hall call panel for human-use calling of the elevator car at one or more floors where the elevator can be called by the robot.
PNG
media_image16.png
93
1072
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, SEOKTAE discloses
, wherein the robot is configured to perform a handshake operation (Normal operation) with the controller prior to traveling within the elevator car, and wherein the elevator car is configured to not travel if the handshake operation is not performed.
PNG
media_image17.png
465
1207
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, SEOKTAE discloses
transmitting from the robot a handshake request to the controller prior to operating the elevator car (See claim 11 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 19, SEOKTAE discloses
verifying, with the controller, that a request for use of the elevator car is made by the robot as compared to a human (See claim 8 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 20, SEOKTAE discloses
verifying that no humans are present in the elevator car prior to causing operation thereof (See claim 9 rejection for detail).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEOKTAE in a view of HERKEL and further in a view of Cousins et al. (US 20200398436 A1).
Regarding claim 7, a combination of SEOKTAE and HERKEL does not disclose but Cousins et al. disclose
, wherein the robot (Fig, 1, item 102) is configured to make elevator call requests to the controller through a wireless communication [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the robot as disclosed by Cousins in SEOKTAE’s teachings to direct an elevator [Cousins’s 0036]
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEOKTAE in a view of HERKEL and further in a view of Noguchi et al. US 20220033216 A1 .
Regarding claim 21, a combination of SEOKTAE and HERKEL does not disclose but Noguchi discloses defining, with the robot, an elevator door open period and including the elevator door open period with the request for elevator service [0039-0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use elevator door open period and including the elevator door open period with the request for elevator service as disclosed by Noguchi in SEOKTAE’s teachings to determine if it is possible to ride in the car [Noguchi’s 0040]
Regarding claim 22, a combination of SEOKTAE and HERKEL does not disclose but Noguchi discloses, wherein the robot is configured to define an elevator door open period and the request includes the elevator door open period [0039-0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define an elevator door open period and the request includes the elevator door open period as disclosed by Noguchi in SEOKTAE’s teachings to determine if it is possible to ride in the car [Noguchi’s 0040]
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot over new prior art (see updated claim rejections for detail).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Han can be reached at 5712722078. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights