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 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-10 have been considered and a modified rejection of the claims will be presented to address the amendment filed on 12/23/25. The only argument against the previously submitted rejection is that the prior art of record does not teach the new added limitation. The new added limitation only recites a preferred pattern of motion for the plurality of elevators cars. The specification/original drawings do not provide any specific description of how the elevator cars overlap each other in the horizontal plane or when this horizontal movement occurs. If the elevator is used in a building, cars normally move vertically (up/down) in one or more shafts and move horizontally through a transfer section of the shaft. Applicant needs to provide where in the original documents we could find a description of how the elevator cars overlap each other in the elevator shaft.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of comparing data or a mathematical algorithm rather than a specific technical improvement without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a program executed by a processor; the program performs a process having the single step of changing a parameter of a car door of a second elevator car based on parameter of a first elevator car. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not specify how the processor changes the parameter; it does not list the specific algorithm or technical/physical transformation of any received information such as the motor speed/current of the first elevator car. 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 implementation of an abstract concept. Additionally, the new limitation directed to an elevator system including a plurality of cars that overlap each other on a horizontal projection plane represents insignificant pre-solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional element does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
Similarly, claim 6 recites a multi-car elevator system that includes a plurality of cars that overlap each other on a horizontal projection plane, and a processor that executes a program stored in a memory, wherein the program performs a single step of “judging” a condition of a car door of a second car based on a parameter of a car door of a first car. New amended claim 6 as a whole does not provide an inventive concept as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
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 1-10 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, including the drawings, only repeats that the elevator cars overlap in a horizontal plane. Figure 1 illustrates elevator cars 2a and 2b next to each other; no figure drawing or description of the invention provides any reference to parallel tracks/rails or transfer stations/sections of an elevator shaft that would allow the movement of the elevator cars as recited in the claims.
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 system that has a plurality of cars overlapping each other in a horizontal plane can change a parameter of a car door of a second car based on a parameter of a car door of a first (different) car.
Claim 2, how can a clearance distance between a car door and a hatch door in each door be used to change a door open reacceleration position of a second car door that lands on a same floor? How is the clearance distance estimated?
Claim 3, how is a torque limit set in one car door in each floor use to change the torque limit of another car door that lands on the same floor?
Claims 4, 7, and 9, how is a “condition” of one car door “judged” based on a motor speed or current? What “condition” is applicant referring to?
Claims 5, 8, and 10, what condition can one “judge” using a comparison between a motor speed or current that was learned at the time of installing the elevator system and a measured motor speed or current?
Claim 6, how can an elevator system that has a plurality of cars overlapping each other in a horizontal plane “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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US Patent 7621378), Hmelovsky (US Patent 4342378), and Pasini et al (US Publication 2018/0022574).
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.
Kawai/Hmelovsky do not teach an elevator system comprising a plurality of cars, wherein the cars overlap each other in a horizontal projection plane.
As stated above, “Response to Arguments”, the limitation directed to the elevator’s cars overlapping in the horizontal plane is considered a preferred pattern. Pasini et al will be introduced to show that some elevator systems can choose to move its elevator cars in the manner recited in the claims.
Pasini et al teaches a multi-car elevator system comprising a plurality of elevators cars 124 moving in a plurality of shafts 102 that include two or more horizontal transfer systems 126 and a control system 50 that includes a controller 46 and car on-board controller 56, wherein the elevator system may be operated by circulating the elevator cars 124 in various patterns which may include overlapping one or more elevator cars as described in figures 12, 13A/B, and 14 and corresponding description.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to use motors to control movement of the elevator door described by Kawai, since motors are commonly used to provide the necessary power to automatically open, close, or hold elevators doors opened/closed. Additionally, selecting a preferred pattern of movement for one or more elevators cars within an elevator shaft or shafts is considered a design choice and will depend on the intended use of the elevator system.
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, 7, 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, 8, 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
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 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.
Additionally, claim 2 has not been rejected using prior art since the claim did not provide how the clearance distance is estimated or how the clearance distance of one car is used to change a door open reacceleration position of a different elevator car.
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.
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, 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