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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 2, the following shoul be deleted: “characterized in that”. 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 1-32 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.
What is the relationship between the “an elevator call” introduced in claim 1, line 5 (and claim 14, line 7; and claim 24, line 8) and the “an elevator call” introduced in claim 1, line 1 (and claim 14, line 1 and claim 24, line 4)?
In claim 1, line 6 and claim 14, line 8, the limitation “it” is vague and indefinite. What structure does “it” reference? What structure is being claimed?
Claims 9 and 11 recites the limitation "the list" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-9, 11-20, 22-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Thum et al., US PGPub 2020/0102184.
PNG
media_image1.png
730
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 24 Thum et al. discloses a distributed processing system (decentralized control system - see fig 3) for processing an elevator call (see [0060]), characterized in that, comprising a plurality of wireless communication modules (51) deployed in an elevator service area (1), each of the wireless communication modules (51) is associated with one or more call units (4) and configured to: perform a call assignment (see [0060]) operation in response to an elevator call (as described above) from a terminal device (511-533) specifying it as a target wireless communication module (target 51 – see fig 3); and return a message (confirmation signal) about call assignment to the terminal device (see [0061]).
Regarding claims 2, 15, 25 and 27 Thum et al. discloses the distributed processing system of claims 1, 14, and 24 wherein, the target wireless communication module (as described above) is indicated by a device identification of one of the wireless communication module (51) included in the elevator call (as described above), and at least one of the wireless communication modules (51) is further configured to broadcast a list (i.e. position data – see [0057]) about the wireless communication modules (51) , the list includes device identifications of the wireless communication modules (51) for selection by the terminal device (511-533).
Regarding claim 3, Thum et al. discloses the distributed processing system of claim 1, wherein the target wireless communication module (as described above) is indicated by a device identification of one of the wireless communication modules (51) included in the elevator call (as described above), and a list about the wireless communication modules (51) is built into the terminal device (511-533), the list includes device identifications of the wireless communication modules (51) for selection by the terminal device (511-533).
Regarding claims 4 and 26, Thum et al. discloses the distributed processing system of claims 1 and 24, wherein the target wireless communication module (as described above) is indicated by a device identification of one of the wireless communication modules (51) included in the elevator call (as described above), and the terminal device (511-533) acquires a list about the wireless communication modules (51) from a call controller, the list includes device identifications of the wireless communication modules (51) for selection by the terminal device (511-533).
Regarding claims 5, 16, and 28 Thum et al. discloses the distributed processing system of claims 1, 14, and 24 wherein the message (as described above) about call assignment includes an identification of the assigned call unit (4).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Thum et al. discloses the distributed processing system of claims 1 and 14, wherein each of the wireless communication modules (51) is configured to perform the call assignment operation in the following manner: assigning one of the associated call units (4) to the elevator call (as described above) based on the elevator call (as described above) and an operation state (see [0051])of the associated call units (4) acquired from a call controller (511), wherein the operation state includes floors where cars of the call units are currently located (10) and current moving direction (9, see [0051]).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Thum et al. discloses the distributed processing system of claims 6 and 17, wherein each of the wireless communication modules (51) is further configured to: send the message about call assignment to the call controller (511) associated with the assigned call unit (4).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Thum et al. discloses the distributed processing system of claims 6 and 17, wherein the wireless communication module (51) communicates with the call controller (511) in a wireless manner.
Regarding claims 9, 20, and 30 Thum et al. discloses the distributed processing system of claims 1 and 14 and 24, wherein the list (as described above) also includes state information of the wireless communication modules (51) and service feature (see [0046]-[0048]) that can be provided by the call units (4) associated with the wireless communication modules (51).
Regarding claims 11, 22, and 31 Thum et al. discloses the distributed processing system of claims 1 and 14 and 24, wherein the list (as described above) indicates an order of the wireless communication modules (51) in which the terminal device (511-533) sends the elevator call (as described above) by means of positions of the wireless communication modules present in the list (as described above).
Regarding claims 12 and 23, Thum et al. discloses the distributed processing system of claims 1 and 14, wherein the wireless communication module (51) is installed within a landing (see fig 3) or elevator hoistway (2).
Regarding claim 13, Thum et al. discloses an elevator control system comprising the distributed processing system of claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, Thum et al. discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 28, wherein the execution of the computer program causes that step A or step B is allowed to be executed when one of the following conditions is met: 1) the message about call assignment is not received within a set time interval after sending the elevator call (see [0009])
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) 10, 21, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thum et al.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Thum et al. discloses the distributed processing system of claims 1 and 14 but does not specify that the wireless communication modules are powered by independently operating power supplies. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to create a system with independently operating power supplies such as backup batteries. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ independently operating power supplies in order to allow for communication with the elevators in the event of power interruption from a centralized location.
Regarding claim 32, Thum et al. discloses the computer-readable storage medium of claim 24 but does not specify a remote server suitable for access by the terminal device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to employ a remote server since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of local and remote storage for their use in the elevator control system art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motived to employ a remote server in order to centrally control the elevator control parameters and facilitate incorporation into varied elevator configurations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Mansen can be reached at (571) 272-6608. 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.
MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654