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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicants’ amendment filed April 28, 2026. Claim 4 has been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph has been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims have been considered and are addressed below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “send the trigger signal in response to the specified dead time has elapsed” should be changed to state “send the trigger signal in response to the specified dead time being elapsed”.
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 1-3 and 5-14 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 and 13 include limitations stating “the main controller is further configured to, when configured to receive the detection signals from the sensors”. However the term “when” renders the claim(s) indefinite. It is unclear whether the claim(s) necessarily require the limitations which follow in a situation in which the main controller is not configured to receive the detection signals. For examining purposes, these limitations are interpreted as stating “the main controller is further configured to”.
Claims 2, 3, 5-12 and 14 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims do not correct the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelly (US 2020/0071133 A1).
Claims 1 and 15: Kelly discloses a stimulation system and method for monitoring an elevator system, the elevator system shown in Figure 1 to have an elevator car (11) with an input unit (door driving mechanism 111c) (page 2 paragraph [0042]) for providing operational signals to an elevator controller (3) of the elevator system and having sensors (door sensor 13) for detecting an operating state of an elevator door (111) of the elevator car and outputting corresponding detection signals (page 5 paragraph [0083]). A main controller (door sensor controller 133) includes a trigger output for sending trigger signals to open elevator door in case of an obstruction and configurable to receive the detection signals from transmitter (131) and receiver (133) (page 10 paragraph [0147]) of sensors (page 3 paragraph [0052]). An activation controller (door controller 111b) shown in Figure 1 to be connected to the input unit of the elevator car, includes a trigger input where the trigger input is connected to the trigger output of the main controller for receiving the trigger signals such that the activation controller is configured to cause, in response to a trigger signal received on the trigger input, activation of predetermined operational signals (elevator door to open or remain open) at the input unit, wherein the main controller (302) is configured to send (404) the trigger signal over the trigger output (page 10 paragraph [0147]). The main controller further determines based on the detection signals whether at least one change of the operating state occurs in accordance with at least one predetermined operational signal (page 5 paragraph [0083]).
The activation controller controls a computer program that defines rules for operating the elevator door according to a particular predetermined time delay (delay period) (page 6 paragraph [0091]). Therefore the activation controller includes a delay circuit connected to the trigger input and activation elements (buttons receiving user input) of a car operating panel (112) connected to the delay circuit, where the activation elements are connectable to the input unit, and the delay circuit is configured to generate operational commands in response to receiving the trigger signal (page 6 paragraph [0094]-[0100]). Each operational command changes a state of one of the activation elements such that, when connected to the input unit, activation of a corresponding one of the operational signals is caused; and wherein at least one of the operational commands is generated with a time delay with respect to the trigger signal (page 6 paragraph [0091], [0094]-[0100]).
Claim 2: Kelly discloses a stimulation system as stated above, where the main controller is configured to determine based on the detection signals, that since the last use of the door being open of the elevator car, a specified dead time (delay period) has elapsed and send the trigger signal to close the elevator door when it is determined that the specified dead time has elapsed since the last use (page 6 paragraph [0103]).
Claim 3: Kelly discloses a stimulation system as stated above, where the activation controller is configured to cause the activation of some or all of the predetermined operational signals in a predetermined sequence such that between each two consecutive of the operational signals of the predetermined sequence a respective delay time period (delay period) is present (page 6 paragraph [0091]).
Claim 5: Kelly discloses a stimulation system as stated above, where at least two of the at least one of the operational commands generated with time delay with respect to the trigger signal are generated with different time delays with respect to the trigger signal (page 6 paragraph [0094]-[0100]).
Claim 6: Kelly discloses a stimulation system as stated above, where the at least one predetermined operational signal comprises a door opening signal if an obstruction is detected, before re-attempting a door close operation (page 6 paragraph [0091]).
Claim 7: Kelly discloses a stimulation system as stated above, where an input interface is provided on associated levels (21), and a user on a level is able to call an elevator so that the user can enter the elevator car on the level and move to a different level upon instructing the car to travel to another level via a car operating panel representing (112) (page 5 paragraph [0078]-[0079]), as is known in the art. The at least one predetermined operational signal then comprises a door opening signal and a drive signal to a second floor; wherein the activation controller is configured to cause the activation of the door opening signal prior to the activation of the drive signal to the second floor.
Claim 8: Kelly discloses a stimulation system as stated above, where the main controller comprises at least one sensor input connected to one or more sensors (door sensor 13) in order to determine elevator door operations from the sensors, the sensors comprising at least one door sensor (page 6 paragraph [0087]).
Claim 9: Kelly discloses a stimulation system as stated above, where each of the at least one change of the operating state is associated with one or more of the at least one predetermined operational signals (page 5 paragraph [0083], page 6 paragraph [0091]).
Claim 10: Kelly discloses a stimulation system as stated above, where the main controller is configured to generate an error message (alert), when it is determined that the at least one change of the operating state does not occur in accordance with the at least one predetermined operational signal (exceeds a threshold); and sends the error message to a remote computing entity (remote maintenance system) (page 9 paragraph [0134]).
Claim 11: Kelly discloses a stimulation system as stated above, where the error message includes information as to which one of the at least one change in the operating state did not occur (operation concerned) (page 9 paragraph [0134]).
Claim 14: Kelly discloses a stimulation system comprising an elevator system comprising an elevator controller and an elevator car comprising an input unit for providing operational signals to the elevator controller, the elevator system having sensors for detecting an operating state of the elevator car and outputting corresponding detection signals; wherein the main controller is configured to receive the detection signals and the activation controller is connected to the input unit, as stated above.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kelly (US 2020/0071133 A1).
Claim 13: Kelly discloses a stimulation system as stated above, where the at least one change of the operating state includes a first change of the operating state and a second change of the operating state (page 6 paragraph [0091]); wherein the main controller is further configured to monitor, after sending the trigger signal, the detection signals for a specified first monitoring time period (period the elevator door takes to move from the open configuration to the closed configuration) and second monitoring time period (period the elevator door is held in the open configuration after detection of an obstruction) whether the first change and second change of the operating state occurs (page 6 paragraph [0094-0100], [0103]), and determines, when the first change of the operating state does not occur during the first monitoring time period, that the first change of the operating state occurs not in accordance with the at least one predetermined operational signal, and sends an alert to a remote maintenance system (page 9 paragraph [0134]) as a maintenance alert (page 11 paragraph [0173]). A maintenance alert indicates an abnormal operation of an elevator car and typically results in removing the elevator car from service, as is known in the art. When taken out of service, the main controller then would stop monitoring whether the second change of the operating state occurs. This reference fails to disclose the second monitoring time period to be longer than the first monitoring time period.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second monitoring time period (period the elevator door is held in the open configuration after detection of an obstruction) to be longer than the first monitoring time period (period the elevator door takes to move from the open configuration to the closed configuration), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would allow sufficient amount of time for a passenger to remove an obstruction before the elevator door is closed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 2020/0071133 A1) in view of Coste et al. (US 4,750,591).
Claim 12: Kelly discloses a stimulation system as stated above, where the main controller is configured to generate a message (alert), when it is determined that the at least one change of the operating state does not occur in accordance with the at least one predetermined operational signal (exceeds a threshold); and sends the error message to a remote computing entity (remote maintenance system) (page 9 paragraph [0134]). This reference fails to disclose a success message to be generated when it is determined that the at least one change of the operating state does occur in accordance with the at least one predetermined operational signal, and the success message to be sent to a remote computing entity.
However Coste et al. teaches an elevator system, where messages corresponding to a transition to a normal or abnormal state are generated including a success message when it is determined that at least one change of an operating state occurs in accordance with at least one predetermined operational signal.
Given the teachings of Coste 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 stimulation system disclosed in Kelly with providing a success message to be generated when it is determined that the at least one change of the operating state does occur in accordance with the at least one predetermined operational signal, such that the success message is sent to the remote computing entity. Doing so would allow the remote computing entity to record and store statistical analysis of the operation of the elevator system to reference during future maintenance inspections.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state on page 9 of the response that the disclosure of Kelly “concerns internal door-control timing logic of Kelly’s door controller 111b, not a separate activation controller that generates operational commands through activation elements connected to an input unit”. However Kelly discloses that door controller (111b) controls operations of an elevator door (111), including predetermined delays defined in a computer program that is executed by the door controller (page 6 paragraph [0091]). The predetermined delays include different periods of time that are associated with different user inputs on a car operating panel (page 6 paragraph [0094]-[0097]). Therefore Kelly properly discloses a separate activation controller (door controller) that generates operational commands corresponding to a computer program through activation elements (buttons receiving user input) connected to an input unit, as required by applicants’ claims.
Applicants further state that Kelly does not disclose “that a separate activation controller changes states of activation elements of the panel in response to a trigger signal”. However Kelly discloses that a door controller (111b) controls an elevator door (111) to be open, or remain open in response to a trigger signal (page 10 paragraph [0147]), and that when a door is open, a close operation cannot be performed until after a predetermined delay period (page 6 paragraph [0091]). Therefore based on a current state of an elevator door, i.e., opening motion, closing motion, fully opened, fully closed, different buttons on a car operating panel will be able to be used to control the elevator door. Depending on whether a car operating panel button can be used, its state would be changed. The changed state would be according to a current state of the elevator door. Kelly then discloses that an activation controller (door controller) changes a state of activation elements (buttons) of a panel in response to a trigger signal, as required by the claims.
Additionally, applicants state the commands in Kelly “are not delayed operational commands generated by a delay circuit for changing states of activation elements”. However as shown above, Kelly discloses that operations of an elevator door are controlled which include predetermined delays, and a state of a car operating panel button is changed based on a current state of the elevator door. Therefore when the elevator door is controlled according to predetermined delays delayed operational commands would also be generated which change a state of the car operating panel buttons. Kelly then properly discloses applicants’ limitations as required by the claims.
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 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 July 25, 2026
