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
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed December 23, 2025. Claims 14-27 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Objection to claim 22 has been withdrawn.
Rejections of claims 16 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered and are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doane et al. (US 4,367,810).
Claims 14 and 25: Doane et al. discloses a car controller for an elevator car of an elevator system and a method for controlling a car door of an elevator car of an elevator system, wherein the car controller (cab controller) is adapted to be arranged (mounted) on the elevator car, the car controller comprising: a primary signal connection to an elevator controller (car controller) of the elevator system to obtain a primary door opening request (door opening and closing demands relating to calls at the landings) from the elevator controller; a secondary signal connection to a door opening mechanism (door motor) of the elevator car via power circuit to transmit a secondary door opening request to the door opening mechanism in the absence of an unsafe condition (abstract); a signal connection to obtain at least one control signal indicating whether the elevator car is in a state intended for opening a car door of the elevator car (column 8 lines 52-58); and wherein the car controller, based on the primary door opening request and the at least one control signal, transmits a secondary door opening request to the door opening mechanism by the secondary signal connection or withholds the secondary door opening request (abstract).
Claim 15: Doane et al. discloses a car controller as stated above, wherein the at
least one control signal is a standstill signal indicating a standstill or a movement of the elevator car in order to determine whether the door can be opened or not (column 12 lines 41-43).
Claim 16: Doane et al. discloses a car controller as stated above, wherein the standstill signal is provided by a speed sensor of the elevator system (column 18 lines 59-68).
Claim 17: Doane et al. discloses a car controller as stated above, wherein the standstill signal, the at least one control signal includes a door zone signal indicating whether the elevator car is in a door zone of the elevator system, and a test (5) determines whether the elevator car is in the door zone, and the door zone signal is generated indicating a negative or affirmative test result (column 10 lines 46-52). Therefore the door zone signal is a Boolean signal.
Claim 18: Doane et al. discloses a car controller as stated above, wherein the at least one control signal includes a door zone signal indicating whether the elevator car is in a door zone of the elevator system (column 13 lines 18-21), and the door zone signal is provided by a shaft information system (hoistway actuated zone switches) of the elevator car (column 4 lines 9-12).
Claim 19: Doane et al. discloses a car controller as stated above, wherein opening of the car door during a movement of the elevator car is permitted if a speed of the moving elevator car is lower than a speed limit value (30 centimeters per minute) (column 18 line 56through column 19 line 22).
Claim 20: Doane et al. discloses a car controller as stated above, wherein the at
least one control signal is a door override signal provided by the elevator controller
(column 12 lines 32-37).
Claim 21: Doane et al. discloses a car controller as stated above, wherein the car controller transmits the secondary door opening request: when the car controller obtains the primary door opening request (abstract) and the standstill signal indicating a standstill of the elevator car (column 12 lines 41-43).
Claim 22: Doane et al. discloses a car controller as stated above, where an elevator system is shown in FIG. 1 to comprise: an elevator car (3); the car controller (cab controller 33); a car door of the elevator controlled by the car controller (column 4 lines 38-40); and an elevator controller (car controller 15) controlling the elevator system (column 3 lines 28-30).
Claim 23: Doane et al. discloses a car controller as stated above, wherein the elevator controller is in a machine room at a top (head) of a hoistway (column 3 lines 26-27), and therefore is stationary in the elevator system.
Claim 24: Doane et al. discloses a car controller as stated above, wherein the car controller is arranged on the elevator car, as shown in FIG. 1.
Claim 26: Doane et al. discloses a car controller where the primary door opening request is obtained, as stated above. The primary door opening request is transmitted by an elevator controller (car controller) of the elevator system (abstract). Prior to obtaining the primary door opening request, the primary door opening request would be transmitted by the elevator controller, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 27: Doane et al. discloses a car controller for an elevator car of an elevator system, wherein the car controller (cab controller) is adapted to be arranged (mounted) on the elevator car, the car controller comprising: a primary signal connection to an elevator controller (car controller) of the elevator system to obtain a primary door opening request (door opening and closing demands relating to calls at the landings) from the elevator controller; a secondary signal connection to a door opening mechanism (door motor) of the elevator car via power circuit to transmit a secondary door opening request to the door opening mechanism in the absence of an unsafe condition (abstract); a signal connection to obtain at least one control signal, the at least one control signal being a door zone signal indicating whether the elevator car is in door zone of the elevator system (column 14 lines 16-21); and wherein the car controller, transmits a secondary door opening request to the door opening mechanism by the secondary signal connection or withholds the secondary door opening request after receiving the primary door opening request based on whether an unsafe condition is detected (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 7 of the response that “[d]irectly opening the power circuit to the door motor is not equivalent to transmitting a secondary door opening request to the door opening mechanism by the secondary signal connection or withholding the secondary door opening request”. However Doane et al. discloses that when any error has been detected, door motor relay is deactivated by setting a general door error flag, and can be activated by removal of the general door error flag (column 16 lines 43-50). Setting and removing flags within a computer program requires transmitting instructional signals based on whether a specific condition is met, as is known in the art. The claims do not limit what time of signal the secondary door opening request is intended to be, nor how it is to communicate with the door opening mechanism. According to its broadest reasonable interpretation, a request to open an elevator car door is an instructional signal within a computer program, and therefore corresponds to the instructional signal for setting and removing the general door error flag in order to prevent or allow an elevator car door to open. In order for the car door to open, the general door error flag must be removed/reset, and therefore a door opening request instruction for allowing the door motor relay to be activated would be transmitted. Doane et al. then properly anticipates applicant’s limitation as required by the claim(s).
Applicant further states that “[w]hen the car controller of Doane de-energizes this relay, the amplifier’s current cannot reach the motor, so the cab controller’s door-control commands become ineffectual…. In this way, the car controller of Doane (corresponding to elevator controller of the present application) is responsible for determining when the door opening request may be executed”. However Doane et al. discloses that “the action to be taken by malfunctions detected in the cab controller need not be performed by the car controller, but is performed directly in response to the cab controller …. And, safety is further enhanced by the lack of any need on the part of either the cab controller or the car controller to analyze signals indicative of failures found by the other controller before acting thereon” (column 2 lines 26-35). It is further explained that “[a] most significant job of the cab controller is to control the opening and closing of the door, in accordance with demands therefore under conditions which are determined to be safe” (column 4 lines 38-42). Therefore even though the car controller disclosed in Doane et al. can determine when the door opening request may be executed, the disclosure explicitly describes that such operation is able to be performed by the cab controller without assistance from the car controller. Doane et al. then properly anticipates applicant’s limitations as required by the claim(s).
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 CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 April 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights