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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/17/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 6/17/26 is not fully completely responsive to the prior Office Action because: The examiner presented a series of questions related to the recited limitations in old claim 2. Additionally, the section, in the Final Office Action dated 2/23/26, labeled “Conclusion” also specified that the subject matter of claim 2 was unclear. Therefore, applicant cannot just add the subject matter of claim 2 into claim 1 and think the new amended claim is allowable.
Also, the changes made to the pending claims in the response dated 6/17/26 have created new issues under 35 USC (a) & (b) as described below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 6. Claim 6 merely collects data and makes a “judgement” via software. The claim does not specify what the multi-car elevator control device will do with the “judgement”. Claim 6 continues to just recite an abstract idea of monitoring data without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The changes made to independent claim 1 overcomes the 35 USC 101 rejection since it clarifies that the calculated parameter, related to the “clearance distance”, is used to change a parameter (reacceleration position) of the car door of the “other” car which lands on the same floor.
In reference to the added limitations to claim 1, the claim is directed to a multi-car elevator device comprising a memory and a processor (computer), wherein the memory stores a computer program which is executed by the processor. Since the “processor” only executes the program (functional language), the claim invokes USC 112(f) as the “processor” is treated as a generic placeholder. The specification only discloses the same processor and memory and lacks a detailed algorithm for the clearance estimation. The changes made to claim 1 also creates issues under 35 USC 112a because the specification only defines the invention purely in functional language specifying a desired result (estimating and measuring the clearance distance), but the disclosure fails to identify how the functions are performed or how the results are achieved. The specification does not disclose the structure used to measure the clearance or the mathematical operations including parameters needed to estimate the clearance distance.
In reference to claim 6, the original disclosure does not provide any specific structure for “acquiring” the speed/current of each motor used to open/close elevator car doors of a plurality of cars located on specific landing floor. The specification does not describe how the “device” judges based on the acquired speed/current a “condition” of a car door of a car in the plurality of cars.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of monitoring data or a mathematical algorithm rather than a specific technical improvement without significantly more. The claim recites a program executed by a processor; the program performs a process having the single step of “judging” a condition of a car door based on an acquired parameter of a motor used for opening/closing each car door of a plurality of cars located on a landing floor. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not specify how the processor judges the condition; it does not list the specific algorithm or technical/physical transformation of any received information such as the motor speed/current of the doors of a plurality of elevator cars. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it only recites a generic computer implementing the abstract concept.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “processor” in claim claims 1 and 6 (independent claims).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 pre-AIA 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The original specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficiently detail to establish that the inventor has possession of the claimed subject matter. The specification attempts to support the step of “estimating , based on the speed or current of the motor, a clearance distance between the hatch door on the same floor and the car door of the specified car”, the step of “estimating” the clearance distance of a hatch door and car door of a second car based on the clearance distance of the specific car, and the step of changing a door open deceleration position of the second car based on the clearance distance of said second car by broadly describing that the clearance distance is either “measured” or “estimated” without identifying how the measurement is done and how the estimation is calculated. The limitations of claim 6 are also not supported by the original specification.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, it is not clear how an elevator control device can change a parameter of a car door of a second car based on a parameter of a car door of a first car.
How is the clearance distance between a car door and a hatch door in each elevator car of a plurality of cars estimated? How does the control device change a door open reacceleration position of a second car door that lands on the same floor as a first car? Also, what constitute a low-speed door opening movement? The specification or the claims do not describe a speed curve or a look up table where we could determine what a low value could be.
Claim 3, how is a torque limit changed? The disclosure does not disclose a table describing baselines for torque related to the motor which open/close the elevator door.
Claims 4 and 9, the claim does not recite any specific parameters for any abnormal condition. The claims do not include a clear boundary, the original documents do not have any support for an undisclosed number of abnormal conditions.
Claims 5 and 10, what abnormal condition can one “detect”, using a comparison between a parameter that it is learned at the time of installing the elevator system and the measured motor speed or current?
Claim 6, how can an elevator system “judge” a “condition” of a car door of a second car based on a parameter of a car door of a first (different) car?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US Patent 7621378) and Hmelovsky (US Patent 4342378).
The claims have been rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) for not reciting a clear and complete invention. Prior art has been applied to an invention as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 1 and 6, Kawai teaches an elevator door control system comprising: a processor 54 connected to an elevator controller 39 for automatically controlling the operation of a plurality of elevator cars 7a, wherein a control parameter (position of elevators doors) is changed based on speed information from a specified car (as described in the train-mode of operation described for example in col. 14 lines 1-67 to col. 15 lines 1-21). Controller 39 responds to activation of an in-car switch 35 in one of the elevators (selected elevator) by closing the doors of said selected elevator (the door moves from an opening state to a closing state using a predetermined speed) and based on the detected movement the selected elevators, the doors of the rest of the plurality of elevators are closed.
Although, Kawai teaches in col. 3 lines 63-67 that the cars 7 include doors 25 driven by a driving unit, he does not describe said driving unit as a motor. However, Hmelovsky teaches a control system for a multi-car elevator comprising a group controller 17 operating a plurality of car controllers 15/16, sheave/motor/brake assemblies 7/8, a plurality of cars 3 and 4, and a door operator (fig. 3) also including a plurality of motors.
Claim 3, Hmelovsky describes different parameters for controlling the operation of the motors which manage the opening and closing state of each of the elevator doors, wherein said parameters include speed, acceleration, current, position, and/or torque (see for example the speed profile described in fig. 4 as well as descriptions given in col. 11 lines 49-67 and col. 12 lines 1-35).
Claims 4 and 9, as described above in the rejection of claim 1, Kawai describes controller 39 judges a condition (opening state or close state) of the doors from the elevators not selected by activating switch 35 of a selected elevator based on the speed (moving state) of the selected elevator.
Claims 5 and 10, Kawai describes processor 54 using the movement (speed) of a selected elevator from a plurality of elevators to judge a condition of the rest of the non-selected elevators. It is obvious that set speed information is used by processor 54 to establish an automatic operation when the train-mode of operation is used.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional documents have been cited in the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Prosecution Insights