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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “car door” in claims 1 and 15, “landing door” in claims 8 and 18, “one or more car doors” in claim 7, “one or more landing doors” in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: D, P, P1, P2, FD, RD in paragraph 0041, P’ and D’ in paragraph 0063 and 0073. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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, 8, 2, 9, 3, 10, 4, 11, 7, 14-16, 18, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi US 2007/0158140 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi discloses
An elevator car operating panel (Fig. 7, item 1a), comprising: a plurality of buttons, each of the buttons (Item 1p) corresponding to one of a plurality of floors [0041]; a control unit (Fig. 1, item 1) coupled with the plurality of buttons (Item 1p is within item 1a which is a part within item 1), comprising a controller (Item 1h) and a memory (Item 1g) coupled with the controller [0041], computer instructions that can be executed by the controller are stored in the memory, the computer instructions are executed to cause the following operations: A. determining, in response to an event that one of the plurality of buttons is operated, whether a car door (hall entrance) associated with the car operating panel is allowed to open when a car stops at a floor corresponding to the one of the plurality of buttons; B. if it is allowed to open, the button is made to be in a normally lit state, otherwise, the one of the plurality of buttons is made to be in a flashing state [0031-0035, 0041, 0044] (It should be noted that the contents are displayed by a continuous change in colors).
Regarding claim 8, Takeuchi discloses
An elevator call-out operating panel, comprising: one or more buttons (Item 1p), each for indicating a desired direction of movement of a car relative to a landing station (Floor information) where the elevator call-out operating panel is located; a control unit coupled with a plurality of buttons, comprising a controller and a memory coupled with the controller, computer instructions that can be executed by the controller are stored in the memory, the computer instructions are executed to cause the following operations: A'. determining, in response to an event that one of the plurality of buttons is operated, whether a landing door associated with the elevator call-out operating panel is allowed to open when a car stops at the landing station to which the elevator call-out operating panel belongs; B'. if it is allowed to open, the one of the plurality of buttons is made to be in a normally lit state, otherwise, the one of the plurality of button is made to be in a flashing state (See claim 1 rejection for detail).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Takeuchi discloses
, wherein each of the plurality of buttons is configured to send a corresponding trigger signal (via a sensor 1d) to the control unit to indicate the event that the button is operated when it is pressed or an object is hovered in its vicinity [0041].
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Takeuchi discloses
, wherein each of the plurality of buttons comprises a sensing area and a light-emitting element (LED) located behind or below the sensing area [0032].
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Takeuchi discloses, wherein the memory is a flash memory or an erasable programmable read-only memory (a scratchpad memory) on which configuration information about whether the car door is allowed to open when the car stops at each floor is also stored [0031, 0032].
Regarding claim 7, Takeuchi discloses
An elevator car system, comprising: one or more car doors (Hall entrances); one or more elevator car operating panels (Display) as claimed in claim 1, each associated with one of the car doors (see claim 1 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 14, Takeuchi discloses
A landing station system, comprising: one or more landing doors (Hall entrances); one or more elevator call-out operating panels (Display) as claimed in claim 8, each associated with one of the landing doors (see claim 8 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 15, Takeuchi discloses
A method for indicating a service status (Via display) of an elevator [0041], comprising: A. determining, in response to an event that one of a plurality of buttons of an elevator car operating panel is operated, whether a car door associated with the car operating panel is allowed to open when a car reaches a floor corresponding to the one of the plurality of buttons; B. if it is allowed to open, the one of the plurality of buttons is made to be in a normally lit state, otherwise, the button is made to be in a flashing state (See claim 1 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 16, Takeuchi discloses
, wherein step A comprises: Al. receiving a trigger signal (via a sensor 1d) from the one of the plurality of buttons; A2. determining, based on configuration information stored in a memory (fig. 1g, item 1g) in the car operating panel, whether the car door associated with the car operating panel is allowed to open when the car stops at the floor corresponding to the one of the plurality of buttons [0031, 0032, 0041].
Regarding claim 18, Takeuchi discloses
A method for indicating a service status of an elevator, comprising: A'. determining, in response to an event that one of buttons of an elevator call- out operating panel is operated, whether a landing door associated with the elevator call-out operating panel is allowed to open when a car stops at a landing station to which the elevator call-out operating panel belongs; B'. if it is allowed to open, the one of buttons is made to be in a normally lit state, otherwise, the one of buttons is made to be in a flashing state (See claim 15 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 19, Takeuchi discloses
, wherein step A' comprises: Al'. receiving a trigger signal (via a sensor 1d) from the one of the buttons; A2'. determining, based on configuration information, whether the landing door is allowed to open when the car stops at the landing station to which the elevator call- out operating panel belongs [0041].
Regarding claim 21, Takeuchi discloses
A computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored in the computer-readable storage medium (fig. 1, item 1g), when the instructions are executed by a processor (Item 1h) [0031, 0031], the processor is caused to execute the method of claim 15 (see claim 15 rejection for detail).
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 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in a view of Reynolds. US 2011/0071682 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Takeuchi does not disclose but Reynolds discloses, wherein the execution of the computer instruction causes operation A to be implemented in the following manner: A1’. receiving a trigger signal from one of the plurality of buttons; A2. determining, based on the configuration information, whether the car door associated with the car operating panel is allowed to open when the car stops at the floor corresponding to the button [0026, 0060]. 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 trigger signal from the button as disclosed by Reynolds in Takeuchi’s teachings to suspend operation of the door when a safety issue arises (See Reynolds paragraph 0050)
Regarding claim 12, Takeuchi does not disclose but Reynolds discloses, wherein the execution of the computer instructions causes operation A' to be implemented in the following manner: Al'. receiving a trigger signal from one of the plurality of buttons; A2'. determining, based on the configuration information, whether the landing door is allowed to open when the car stops at the landing station to which the elevator call-out operating panel belongs [0026, 0060]. 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 trigger signal from the button as disclosed by Reynolds in Takeuchi’s teachings to suspend operation of the door when a safety issue arises (See Reynolds paragraph 0050).
Claims 6, 13, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in a view of Velauthapillai et al. US 5,969,306.
Regarding claim 6, Takeuchi does not disclose but Velauthapillai et al. disclose wherein the execution of the computer instruction causes operation B to be implemented in the following manner: B1. if it is allowed to open, the light-emitting element of the corresponding button is made to be powered on; B2. if it is not allowed to open, a current or voltage input to the light-emitting element is made to be varied within a set range (column 2, lines 48-67, column 3, lines 1-34).
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 the functionality of the light-emitting element as disclosed by Velauthapillai in Takeuchi’s teachings to indicate the position of the elevator car. (Velauthapillai’s column 1, lines 1-3)
Regarding claim 13, Takeuchi does not disclose but Velauthapillai et al. disclose, wherein the execution of the computer instruction causes operation B' to be implemented in the following manner: B1'. if it is allowed to open, the light-emitting element of the corresponding button is made to be powered on; B2'. if it is not allowed to open, a current or voltage input to the light-emitting element is made to be varied within a set range (column 2, lines 48-67, column 3, lines 1-34).
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 the functionality of the light-emitting element as disclosed by Velauthapillai in Takeuchi’s teachings to indicate the position of the elevator car. (Velauthapillai’s column 1, lines 1-3)
Regarding claim 17, Takeuchi does not disclose but Velauthapillai et al. disclose, wherein step B comprises: B 1. if it is allowed to open, a light-emitting element of the corresponding button is made to be powered on; B2. if it is not allowed to open, a current or voltage input to the light-emitting element is made to be varied within a set range (column 2, lines 48-67, column 3, lines 1-34).
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 the functionality of the light-emitting element as disclosed by Velauthapillai in Takeuchi’s teachings to indicate the position of the elevator car. (Velauthapillai’s column 1, lines 1-3)
Regarding claim 20, Takeuchi does not disclose but Velauthapillai et al. disclose, wherein step B' comprises: B1'. if it is allowed to open, a light-emitting element of the corresponding button is made to be powered on; B2'. if it is not allowed to open, a current or voltage input to the light-emitting element is made to be varied within a set range. (column 2, lines 48-67, column 3, lines 1-34).
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 the functionality of the light-emitting element as disclosed by Velauthapillai in Takeuchi’s teachings to indicate the position of the elevator car. (Velauthapillai’s column 1, lines 1-3)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Skolnick (US 6,230,847 B1) discloses flashing door open button for an elevator car.
Felder et al. (US 7,398,865 B2) disclose an elevator car operating panel.
Karkela (US 8,215,457 B2) discloses multifunction call buttons for an elevator system.
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