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 12/10/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-7 as set forth above in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-7, 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudi et al. (US 20190202659 A1) in view of Lence Barreiro et al. (US 6543583 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Sudi discloses a computer implemented method/system and computer program of monitoring an alignment of a component of a conveyance system (para. 0007, 0052), the method comprising: capturing, using a camera system, a follow-on image of the component of the conveyance system (para. 0052); determining a follow-on location of the component using photogrammetric measurements (e.g., sequences of the media captured from the camera) of the follow-on image (para. 0003, 0007-0009); comparing the follow-on location to a baseline location of the component (para. 0003, 0007-0009, 0047: “The controller 302 can compare the new images to the reference images using image analyzation techniques, to determine any changes between the reference images and the new images. A comparison score can be obtained based on the changes between the images. This may be performed by comparing pixel values at the same locations in the new image and the reference image, or by any other known image comparison tool …”); and determining whether the component has shifted away from the baseline location based on the follow-on location and the baseline location (para. 0003, 0007-0009, 0047).
Sudi does not mention explicitly: in response to determining that an angular misalignment or a linear misalignment of the component exceeds a first threshold of misalignment, triggering an error that is stored and reported; and in response to determining that an angular misalignment or a linear misalignment of the component exceeds a second threshold of misalignment greater than a first threshold of misalignment, triggering an alarm, shut down, or an increased priority alert to mechanic.
Lence Barreiro discloses a computer implemented method/system and computer program of monitoring operating conditions of a component of a conveyance system (Abstract; col. 1, lines 12-17), wherein said operating conditions comprise an alignment of the component (col. 16, lines 29-55; see also claim 1), wherein the method comprises: in response to determining that an angular misalignment or a linear misalignment of the component exceeds a first threshold of misalignment, triggering an error that is stored and reported (col. 2, lines 4-16); and in response to determining that an angular misalignment or a linear misalignment of the component exceeds a second threshold of misalignment greater than a first threshold of misalignment, triggering an alarm, shut down, or an increased priority alert to mechanic (Fig. 11; col. 10, line 30 – col. 11, lines 34).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lence Barreiro’s teaching of severity-dependent error handling process into Sudi to achieve the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for providing maintenance messages indicative of maintenance action which is recommended to be taken, reasons for the recommendation, and indications of the severity of the underlying situation (Lence Barreiro, col. 1, lines 12-17), thus improve the feasibility and applicability of the Sudi method/system.
Regarding claim 2, Sudi discloses: capturing, using the camera system, a baseline image of the component of the conveyance system (para. 0007-0009, 0047); and determining the baseline location of the component using photogrammetric measurements of the baseline image (para. 0007-0009, 0047: “The controller 302 can compare the new images to the reference images using image analyzation techniques, to determine any changes between the reference images and the new images. … This may be performed by comparing pixel values at the same locations in the new image and the reference image, or by any other known image comparison tool”).
Regarding claim 3, Sudi discloses: determining whether a shift away from the baseline location is greater than an acceptable variance amount (para. 0009, 0047: “the reference images may be obtained while a mechanic is on site working on the elevator car 304 and has deemed that all components of the car 304 are operating within normal tolerances. … The absolute values of all the pixel differences between new image and the reference image may then be summed to generate a comparison score”) which indicates that a linear misalignment of the component is outside of an acceptable range (para. 0047: “The controller 302 can capture new images of the set of locations from the cameras 310 at a later time and compare these new images to the reference images for the corresponding locations. These new images can be captured at a specific time, periodically, or as requested by a mechanic …”; para. 0048: “Multiple threshold values can be set to determine the type of alert sent to the user”; para. 0052: “The sequences can be pre-set sequences. For example, the media can be transmitted and displayed on a user device and cycled every 10 seconds for review by the user. The set of locations are pre-set in the sequence to allow for review by the mechanic”).
Regarding claim 4, Sudi discloses: activating an alert on a computing device when the linear misalignment of the component is outside of the acceptable range (para. 0006-0007).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 15-16, Sudi discloses: generating/transmitting an alert when the linear misalignment of the component is outside of the acceptable range (para. 0048).
Sudi does not mention explicitly: creating a new maintenance event on a calendar when the angular misalignment or the linear misalignment of the component is outside of the acceptable range; moving a previously scheduled maintenance event on a calendar when the linear misalignment of the component is outside of the acceptable range.
Examiner takes official notice that, in response to an alert, actions such as creating a new maintenance event on a calendar and/or moving a previously scheduled maintenance event on a calendar are well-known or commonly practiced in the related filed. Since Sudi teaches general conditions of elevator maintenance and inspection operations, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these well-known features into the Sudi method/system to arrive the claimed invention. It has been held that mere applications of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Sudi discloses: wherein the conveyance system is an elevator system (Fig. 5). Sudi does not but Lence Barreiro discloses: wherein the component is a door lock component of a door lock for hoistway door of the elevator system (col. 16, lines 29-55). As such, the combination of Sudi and Lence Barreiro renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding claims 12-14, Sudi discloses the claimed invention (see discussion of claims 2-4 above).
Regarding claim 17, Sudi discloses: wherein the conveyance system is an elevator system (Fig. 5).
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudi et al. in view of Lence Barreiro et al., further in view of VESTY (US 20200367455 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sudi does not mention explicitly: wherein the baseline location and the follow-on location of the component are established in a cartesian coordinate system for which a selected position on the component serves as a coordinate origin.
VESTY discloses a computer implemented method/system and computer program of monitoring an operating condition of a component (e.g., an air lock) of a conveyance system (Abstract; para. 0134-0135), comprising: establishing a baseline location and a follow-on location of the component in a cartesian coordinate system for which a selected position on the component serves as a coordinate origin (para. 0006, 0220-0221, 0228, 0265).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sudi/Lence Barreiro to establish the baseline location and the follow-on location of the component in a cartesian coordinate system for which a selected position on the component serves as a coordinate origin, as taught by VESTY, to achieve the claimed invention. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique (e.g., a standard Cartesian coordinate system) to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable for cost-effective assessment of the 3D position/alignment of the component in a conveyance system, since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness.
6. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudi et al. in view of Lence Barreiro et al. and VESTY, further in view of Oh et al. (US 20060232789 A1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Sudi does not mention explicitly: wherein the camera system further comprises: a first camera at a first location relative to the door lock; and a second camera at a second location relative to the door lock; wherein the first camera is located above the door lock looking down onto the door lock, and wherein the second camera is located on a side of the door lock looking axially down the door lock.
Oh teaches position referencing system for an elevator system (Abstract), comprising: capturing, using a camera system (Fig. 1), a follow-on image of a component of the elevator system, wherein the component is a door lock component of a door lock for a hoistway door of the elevator system (para. 0019: under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “a static structure, such as a door frame 40 or a wall” reads on the claimed “a door lock component”; see also Fig. 4 and related text and para. 0026, 0030); wherein the camera system further comprises: a first camera (48 and the associated reflectors) at a first location relative to the door lock, and a second camera (48’ and the associated reflectors) at a second location relative to the door lock (para. 0026); wherein the first camera is located above the door lock looking down onto the door lock, and wherein the second camera is located on a side of the door lock looking axially down the door lock (para. 0025-0027).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sudi/Lence Barreiro/VESTY with Oh’s teaching of the camera system to monitor the positioning of the door lock component in a hoistway or guideway of the elevator system. Doing so would provide a position referencing system and method that has fine accuracy, minimized correction run, and easy installation and easy maintenance for horizontal or vertical conveyance, e.g., an elevator (Oh, Abstract; para. 0005).
7. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudi et al. in view of Lence Barreiro et al., further in view of Oh et al. (US 20060232789 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Sudi does not mention explicitly: wherein the camera system further comprises: a first camera at a first location relative to the door lock; and a second camera at a second location relative to the door lock; wherein the first camera is located above the door lock looking down onto the door lock, and wherein the second camera is located on a side of the door lock looking axially down the door lock.
Oh teaches position referencing system for an elevator system (Abstract), comprising: capturing, using a camera system (Fig. 1), a follow-on image of a component of the elevator system, wherein the component is a door lock component of a door lock for a hoistway door of the elevator system (para. 0019: under its broadest reasonable interpretation, “a static structure, such as a door frame 40 or a wall” reads on the claimed “a door lock component”; see also Fig. 4 and related text and para. 0026, 0030); wherein the camera system further comprises: a first camera (48 and the associated reflectors) at a first location relative to the door lock, and a second camera (48’ and the associated reflectors) at a second location relative to the door lock (para. 0026); wherein the first camera is located above the door lock looking down onto the door lock, and wherein the second camera is located on a side of the door lock looking axially down the door lock (para. 0025-0027).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sudi/Lence Barreiro with Oh’s teaching of the camera system to monitor the positioning of the door lock component in a hoistway or guideway of the elevator system. Doing so would provide a position referencing system and method that has fine accuracy, minimized correction run, and easy installation and easy maintenance for horizontal or vertical conveyance, e.g., an elevator (Oh, Abstract; para. 0005).
Conclusion
8. 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
9. 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 on (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