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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoville et al. (US 2020/0130993 A1) in view of Tyni (CN 1976855 A) and Pan (CN 104995930 B) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided English equivalent machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Scoville discloses a method and an elevator system (e.g. Fig. 1) having an object tracking functionality (e.g. Fig. 5), the elevator system comprising:
at least one elevator shaft along which at least one elevator car is configured to travel between a plurality of floors (e.g. Fig. 1),
a plurality of receiver devices (e.g. Fig. 5: 205, 310) forming a wireless network (e.g. [0050-0054]),
wherein at least one elevator interface device of the elevator system on each floor comprises one receiver device of the plurality of receiver devices (e.g. [0051]: door lock on a floor to gain access to elevator, or wireless access protocol device for the elevator system),
a computing unit (e.g. Fig. 2: 206), at least one gateway device (e.g. Fig. 2: 264) for providing connection between the wireless mesh network and the computing unit, and an object (e.g. Figs. 2-5: mobile phone 208),
wherein each of the plurality of receiver devices is configured to: monitor advertisement signals transmitted by the one or more tag devices within an operational range of said receiver device (e.g. [0048, 0060]),
wherein each advertisement signal comprises an identifier for identifying the tag device transmitting said advertisement signal (e.g. [0048-0049]: MAC address/chip signature), and
provide device data associated with each detected advertisement signal to the computing unit via the wireless network and the at least one gateway device (e.g.Figs. 2-5), wherein the device data comprises signal strength value of the detected advertisement signal (e.g. [0048-0060]: signal strength) and the identifier of the detected advertisement signal (e.g. [0048-0049]: MAC address/chip signature), and wherein the computing unit is configured to define a location of the object based on the provided device data associated with said object (e.g. [0040-0060]: determine location of the mobile phone).
Scoville fails to disclose, but Tyni teaches a mesh network (Fig. 3 & p. 8: mesh network), and one or more tag devices each attached to an object (e.g. Abstract & p. 3-6: RFID technology on the mobile phone/access card).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Scoville with the teachings of Tyni to utilize mesh network and RFID technology to communicate user device (mobile phone/access card) with elevator system controller. It is merely simple substitutions of one known method with another since WiFi and mesh network communication are well-known alternative in the art, and the modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
In addition, Scoville discloses the computing unit is configured to define the location of the object based on the signal strength values comprised in the device data provided by at least three receiver devices (e.g. [0043, 0053]: triangulation, trilateration, signal strength detection).
Scoville and Tyni in combination fails to disclose, but Pan teaches the computing unit is configured to define the location of the object based on the signal strength values comprised in the device data provided by at least three receiver devices on three different floors among the plurality of floors (e.g. p. 2 & p. 8 and Fig. 2: determine position of client device CD using position triangulation based on signals from reference point transmitters, such as RP1-RP3 on different floors).
Both Scoville and Pan disclose the position triangulation (i.e. utilizing three reference signals to determine object location) is known in the art, and Pan particularly states the use of three reference transmitters from three different floors in an elevator system when determining object position.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Scoville with the teachings of Pan to determine object position using position triangulation based on signals from three different locations, since it is merely simple substitutions of one known method with another and/or utilizing a known technique in a known device ready for improvement. And, the modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Scoville discloses the computing unit (e.g. Fig. 2: 206) is an elevator control unit or an external computing unit connected to the elevator system via the at least one gateway device (e.g. Fig. 2: 264).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Tyni teaches the wireless mesh network is based on a Bluetooth communication protocol (e.g. p. 7-8).
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoville et al. (US 2020/0130993 A1) in view of Tyni (CN 1976855 A) and Pan (CN 104995930 B) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided English equivalent machine translation) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Prevatt (US 2019/0037350 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Scoville discloses the computing unit is configured to utilize the signal strength values to define the location of the object (e.g. [0048-0060]), but it fails to disclose filtering the signal strength values, using Kalman filtering, before defining the location of the object.
However, Prevatt teaches filtering the signal strength values, using Kalman filtering, before defining the location of the object (e.g. [0530, 0551]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Scoville with the teachings of Prevatt to improve signal strength quality/condition and reduce tracking and locating errors.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoville et al. (US 2020/0130993 A1) in view of Tyni (CN 1976855 A) and Pan (CN 104995930 B) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided English equivalent machine translation) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Drako et al. (US 2018/0089916 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Scoville fails to disclose, but Drako teaches the device data further comprises a time stamp indicating a detection time of the advertisement signal (e.g. [0022, 0067, 0104]), and wherein the computing unit is further configured to define the location of the object at specific one or more instants of time and/or during a specific period of time (e.g. [0103-0108]: location of the device is estimated from the received signal corresponds to the received timestamp).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Scoville with the teachings of Drako to receive timestamp in a received signal so as to improve security when granting or denying access request by comparing whether the request is within a time range from the timestamp and whether the user identifier is authenticated.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoville et al. (US 2020/0130993 A1) in view of Tyni (CN 1976855 A) and Pan (CN 104995930 B) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided English equivalent machine translation) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Shahidi (US 2019/0080538 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Scoville fails to disclose, but Shahidi teaches the one or more tag devices each further comprises one or more sensor devices configured to provide environmental related information about the environment of said tag device, and wherein the device data further comprises the environmental related information (e.g. [0032]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Scoville with the teachings of Shahidi to include plurality of sensors within RFID device so as to utilize environmental information of the RFID device to accurately identify the location of the object associated with the RFID device.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoville et al. (US 2020/0130993 A1) in view of Tyni (CN 1976855 A) and Pan (CN 104995930 B) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided English equivalent machine translation) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Herkel et al. (US 2012/0080273 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Scoville discloses receiver devices (e.g. Fig. 2: 205, 310 & [0043-0045]: sensor 205 is connected to elevator controller 206 and is capable of determining position of mobile device 208 and elevator parameter).
Scoville fails to disclose, but Herkel teaches the receiver device (e.g. Fig. 1: sensor 12, 14) is powered by an elevator control bus (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0014]: CAN bus 34).
Scoville silence on how the sensor/receiver receives power; however, there is only a finite number of solutions to provide power to a sensor (via internal battery and/or a power bus to receive power externally).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Scoville with the teachings of Herkel to provide power to elevator sensors via elevator CAN bus, since it is merely utilizing a known power supply assembly in a known device requires power to function properly. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoville et al. (US 2020/0130993 A1) in view of Tyni (CN 1976855 A), Pan (CN 104995930 B) (hereinafter rejections rely on provided English equivalent machine translation) and Prevatt (US 2019/0037350 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Drako et al. (US 2018/0089916 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Scoville fails to disclose, but Drako teaches the device data further comprises a time stamp indicating a detection time of the advertisement signal (e.g. [0022, 0067, 0104]), and wherein the computing unit is further configured to define the location of the object at specific one or more instants of time and/or during a specific period of time (e.g. [0103-0108]: location of the device is estimated from the received signal corresponds to the received timestamp).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Scoville with the teachings of Drako to receive timestamp in a received signal so as to improve security when granting or denying access request by comparing whether the request is within a time range from the timestamp and whether the user identifier is authenticated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-16 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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.
/KAWING CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights