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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are still rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11 that Witczak et al. do not disclose in paragraph
[0036] a computer unit that receives an information content request from a terminal device, as would be necessary to meet the features of claim 9. The rejection of claim 9 is thus improper for at least these reasons.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Witczak clearly discloses that the maintenance personnel uses the portable device 40 to send a communication indicating a desire to place the elevator car 22 into maintenance mode and to access hoistway access location.
Applicant further argues on page 11 that Witczak et al. do not disclose or even remotely suggest in paragraph [0036] a dynamic document map and information content topics, and more particularly does not disclose generating a dynamic document map that includes references to one or more information content topics.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because one or more information content topics are sending communications indicating elevator ready as shown during step 72. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant further argues on page 12 that Witczak et al. do not disclose or even remotely suggest in paragraph [0043] a dynamic document map and information content topics, and more particularly do not disclose retrieving information content topics referred to in a dynamic document map. The rejection of claim 9 is thus improper for at least these still further additional reasons.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because each step has clear instruction to determine maintenance mode and send communications indicating elevator ready. Therefore, the argumenta are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues on page 12 that Witczak et al. do not disclose or even remotely suggest in paragraph [0043] generating dynamic information content based on information content topics retrieved from a server system. The rejection of claim 9 is thus improper for at least these further additional reasons.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because paragraph 0043 clearly says the elevator controller determines the maintenance mode and sends one or more information to the portable device 40. It should be note that paragraph 0032 clearly mentions that the elevator controller 30 will have one or more virtual machines (server system). Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim 9, 1, 10, 2, 11, 3, 12, 4, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WITCZAK et al. US 2019/0300336 A1.
Regarding claim 9, WITCZAK discloses
A computing unit (Fig. 1, item 30) for generating dynamic information content of a people transport system, the computing unit comprising:
a processing unit comprising at least one processor, and
a memory unit comprising at least one memory storing at least one portion of computer program code [0037], wherein the processing unit is configured to cause the computing unit to:
receive an information content request from a terminal device (Item 40) [0036],
obtain status information (Via location) representing current status of at least part of the people transport system from a server system (virtual machinies) [0032, 0036], generate a dynamic document map (Automated procedures step 68) comprising references to one or more information content topics based at least on the status information obtained, retrieve the one or more information content topics (Maintenance mode step 70) referred in the document map from the server system, generate the dynamic information content (Sending communications step 72) based on the retrieved one or more information content topics retrieved from the server system, and provide the dynamic information content generated (Providing user output step 74) to the terminal device for displaying the dynamic information content [0041-0044].
Regarding claim 1, WITCZAK discloses
A method for generating dynamic information content of a people transport system, the method comprising: receiving an information content request from a terminal device at a computing unit, obtaining, by the computing unit, status information representing current status of at least part of the people transport system from a server system, generating, by the computing unit, a dynamic document map comprising references to one or more information content topics based at least on the status information obtained by the computing unit, retrieving, by the computing unit, the one or more information content topics referred in the dynamic document map from the server system, generating, by the computing unit, the dynamic information content based on the one or more information content topics retrieved from the server system, and providing, by the computing unit, the dynamic information content generated to the terminal device for displaying the dynamic information content. (See claim 9 rejection for detail).
Regarding claims 10 and 2, WITCZAK discloses
, wherein the status information comprises at least one of sensor-based data (Via sensors 38) of the at least part of the people transport system, system specific data (Location), service-related data of the at least part of the people transport system, and temporal data [0036, 0041].
Regarding claims 11 and 3, WITCZAK discloses
, wherein the system specific data comprises at least one of identification information (Location) [0036] of the at least part of the people transport system, model information of at least part of the people transport system, and/or location information.
Regarding claim 12, WITCZAK discloses
, wherein the service-related data of the at least part of the people transport system comprises at least one of one or more service needs (Information from the sensors 38) [0041], one or more recommended actions, service history, spare part information, one or more info letters, and component lifecycle data.
Regarding claim 4, WITCZAK discloses
wherein the service-related data of the people transport system comprises at least one of one or more service needs, one or more recommended actions, service history, spare part information, one or moreinformation letters, product lifecycle management (PLM), information, and component lifecycle data (See claim 12 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 18, WITCZAK discloses
A computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of the computing unit (a processor), cause the computing unit to perform the method according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection for detail) [0031].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 13-17 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WITCZAK et al. US 2019/0300336 A1 in a view of Brackney US 2011/0115816 A1.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, WITCZAK does not disclose but Brackney discloses further configured to: obtain terminal device (PDA) specific information included in the information content request, and define display format of the dynamic information content generated based on the terminal device specific information obtained, wherein the display format is at least one of the following: text, image, video; animation, audio, 3D animation, 3D simulation, augmented reality, virtual reality, and/or mixed reality [0029, 0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an augmented reality as disclosed by Brackney in WITCZAK’s teachings to identify fault condition that may require maintenance. See Brackney’s [0006]
Regarding claim 15, WITCZAK does not disclose but Brackney discloses further configured to obtain one or more 3D models from the server system for displaying the dynamic information content generated, responsive to the display format being defined to be at least one of the augmented reality, the virtual reality, and/or the mixed reality (The augmented reality is 3D based) [0029-0031].
Regarding claim 16, WITCZAK discloses
A system for generating the dynamic information content of the people transport system, comprising: -
the terminal device comprising one or more output devices for displaying the dynamic information content generated, and
the computing unit (a processor) [0031] according to claim 9 (See claim 9 rejection for detail). WITCZAK does not disclose but Brackney discloses the server system comprising one or more servers [0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a server system as disclosed by Brackney in WITCZAK’s teachings to transparently provide building operators with contextually useful information regarding building performance while onsite and proximate
to the corresponding building equipment. See Brackney’s [0030]
Regarding claim 17, WITCZAK discloses
, wherein the computing unit is an external unit (a processor) [0031], an internal unit of the terminal device, or an internal unit of the server system.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, a combination of WITCZAK and Brackney discloses
obtaining terminal device specific information included in the information content request, and defining display format of the generated dynamic information content based on the obtained device specific information, wherein the display format is at least one of text, image, video, animation, audio, 3D animation, 3D simulation, augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality (See claims 13 and 14 rejections for details).
Regarding claim 7, a combination of WITCZAK and Brackney discloses
Obtaining, by the computing unit, one or more 3D models from the server system for displaying the dynamic information content generated, responsive to the the display format being defined to be at least one of the augmented reality, the virtual reality, and the mixed reality (See claim 15 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 8, WITCZAK does not disclose but Brackney discloses wherein the status information (Location) and the one or more information content topics are stored on the same one or more servers of the server system or on different one or more servers of the server system [0028, 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the status information on the servers as disclosed by Brackney in WITCZAK’s teachings to transparently provide building operators with contextually useful information regarding building performance while onsite and proximate to the corresponding building equipment. See Brackney’s [0030]
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WITCZAK et al. US 2019/0300336 A1 in a view of VENKATACHALAM et al. (US 2021/0269280 A1).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, WITCZAK does not disclose but VENKATACHALAM et al. disclose, wherein the information content request is received at the computing unit (an authentication server) from the terminal device (mobile devices) in response to detecting that the terminal device is in proximity to the people transport system (elevator) based on position information of the terminal device [0024, 0027].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect that the terminal device is in proximity to the people transport system based on position information of the terminal device as disclosed by VENKATACHALAM in WITCZAK’s teachings to confirm when users enter and exit the elevators. See VENKATACHAKAM’s [0024]
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 BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, Jessica Han can be reached at 5712722078. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896