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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 15, 2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 10, 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 10 and 19 include limitations pertaining to “the elevator”. These limitations should be changed to state “the elevator car unit” for consistency
Claims 8 and 17 include the limitation “is further configured to determine/determining to recognize multiple commands”. This limitation should be changed to state “is further configured to recognize multiple commands”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 include the limitation “wherein the signal bypasses a second touch interface”. However it is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the first signal which bypasses the first touch interface, or introduce an additional signal bypassing the second touch interface. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “wherein a second signal bypasses a second touch interface”.
Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 depend from claims 1, 10 or 19 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims do not correct the deficiencies of claims 1, 10 or 19.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wallis II et al. (US 2022/0281715 A1).
Claims 1, 10 and 19: Wallis II et al. discloses a device for an elevator control system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors result in performing operations, and a method, the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage, the processing circuitry configured to: detect, at a first microphone located at an exterior of an elevator car unit on a first floor and the first microphone is connected to a hall unit that is connected to a plurality of microphones on different floors of a building (page 3 paragraph [0027]), a first touchless command (“elevator”) received from a user, wherein the first touchless command activates a central processing unit to receive a second touchless command (“going up”) from the user and causes a first signal associated with the second touchless command to be transmitted the central processing unit by bypassing a first touch interface; cause to move the elevator to the first floor based on the first signal being received by the central processing unit (page 6 paragraph [0042]). Detect, at a second microphone located inside the elevator car unit that is connected to the central processing unit (page 3 paragraph [0027]), a third touchless command (“elevator”) received from the user, wherein the third touchless command activates the central processing unit to receive a fourth touchless command (floor command) (page 4 paragraph [0028]). Detect, at the second microphone, the fourth touchless command (“third floor”) from the user; associated with moving the elevator to a specific level in the building; and cause the elevator to move to a designated floor based on the fourth touchless command, wherein the signal bypasses a second touch interface (page 6 paragraph [0042]).
Claims 2, 11 and 20: Wallis II et al. discloses a device, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and method as stated above, where the first touchless command and the third touchless command comprise an audio command (page 6 paragraph [0042]).
Claims 4 and 13: Wallis II et al. discloses a device and non-transitory computer-readable medium as stated above, where the processing circuitry generates a feedback signal indicating to the user a recognition of the first touchless command (page 4 paragraph [0029]).
Claims 6 and 15: Wallis II et al. discloses a device and non-transitory computer-readable medium as stated above, where a plurality of languages are supported for recognizing touchless commands (page 4 paragraph [0028]).
Claims 7 and 16: Wallis II et al. discloses a device and non-transitory computer-readable medium as stated above, where the processing circuitry is able to recognize multiple languages and distinguish and process multiple voice commands spoken in succession (page 4 paragraph [0028]). Therefore the processing circuitry is able to select a language associated with the first touchless command, and further utilize that language in subsequent communications.
Claims 8 and 17: Wallis II et al. discloses a device and non-transitory computer-readable medium as stated above, where the processing circuitry is able to recognize multiple commands in the selected language from a plurality of users at the same time (page 4 paragraph [0028]).
Claims 9 and 18: Wallis II et al. discloses a device and non-transitory computer-readable medium as stated above, where multiple languages are recognized (page 4 paragraph [0028]). Therefore a language used on the first microphone can be different from a language used on the second microphone.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis II et al. (US 2022/0281715 A1) in view of Bryant et al. (US 10,189,677 B2).
Claims 3 and 12: Wallis II et al. discloses a device and non-transitory computer-readable medium as stated above, but fails to disclose a visual input based on image recognition of the user.
However Bryant et al. teaches a device for an elevator control system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors result in performing operations, where visual input is received based on image recognition of a face of a user (passenger) (column 2 lines 5-12).
Given the teachings of Bryant et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device and non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed in Wallis II et al. with providing a visual input based on image recognition of the user. Doing so would allow “the elevator control system to move the elevator car to the elevator passenger’s authorized floor destination” based on “a match between the captured facial image and a facial image stored in the facial image database” as taught in Bryant et al. (column 2 lines 10-14), while restricting “access to certain floors for non-authorized persons” (column 1 lines 48-50).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallis II et al. (US 2022/0281715 A1) in view of Nakajima (US 5,255,341).
Claims 5 and 14: Wallis II et al. discloses a device and non-transitory computer-readable medium as stated above, but fails to disclose the processing circuitry to detect an error in recognizing the second touchless command or the third touchless command, and to generate a visual or audio error feedback signal indicating to the user to repeat the second touchless command or the third touchless command.
However Nakajima teaches a device for an elevator control system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors result in performing operations, where processing circuitry detects an error in recognizing a touchless command, and generates a visual error feedback signal to turn on rejection lamp (7) indicating to the user to repeat the touchless command (column 6 lines 42-66).
Given the teachings of Nakajima, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device and non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed in Wallis II et al. with providing the processing circuitry to detect an error in recognizing the second touchless command, and to generate a visual error feedback signal indicating to the user to repeat the second touchless command. Doing so would “notify the user of the success of speech recognition” as taught in Nakajima (column 6 lines 46-50), and allow the user to repeat the second touchless command “while remaining within [a] prescribed proximity from the [microphone]” upon failure of speech recognition (column 6 lines 59-66).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0276827 A1 and US 9,384,733 B2 pertaining to multiple touchless commands received to input elevator call requests.
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 September 25, 2025