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 were received on 11/23/22. These drawings are approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 16-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original specification only supports a “processor” for controlling the overall operation of the recited elevator system based on received information. The original documents do not support the claimed language related to different “means” for performing the distinct recited functions. The original detailed description of the invention does not provide different circuit elements other than processor 102 for:
receiving vehicle parking information associated with at least one parking space of a vehicle;
controlling an elevator system based on the received feedback information;
determining at least one element of the elevator system to be controlled based on the received feedback information;
using vehicle parking information for estimating a walking time to a nearest elevator from a parking space;
controlling parking of an elevator car in an elevator shaft based on the feedback parking information;
controlling parking of an elevator car to a floor location having the highest probability for a new elevator call;
using the vehicle parking information an as indicator of a probable elevator call from a floor associated with at least one parking space;
making an elevator call based on vehicle parking information;
determining a destination floor based on vehicle parking information;
making a destination call to a destination floor;
determining that at least one parking space is associated with a specific user or user category;
controlling the elevator system based on the specific user or user category;
reserving space from an elevator based on the predefined user or user category;
adjusting elevator door parameters for an elevator trip associated with a specific user or user category based on the specific user or user category;
enabling at least one of voice control or voice guidance for an elevator trip associated with a user or user category based on the predefined user or user category;
using vehicle parking information as an indicator that no elevator passenger traffic is expected from a floor associated with at least one parking space based on the parking information feedback;
controlling parking of an elevator car to another floor location than the floor associated with at least one parking space based on the vehicle parking feedback;
taking a high arrival rate of vehicles to a specific floor into account when controlling the elevator system.
Therefore, applicant needs to delete or amend any reference to different “means” for performing the recited functions. The only “apparatus” described in the original filed specification includes a processor 102, a memory 104, and an interface 108. The processor (computer) is performing all the recited functions
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.
In reference to claim 1, the preamble of claim 1 is directed to a method for controlling an elevator system, however the body of the claim does not provide how the elevator system is controlled based on the received vehicle parking information. 35 USC 112(b) requires the claims to clearly point out the necessary steps needed to accomplish the recited task. It seems the claim in its current form is incomplete.
In reference to claim 2, how is the at least one element of the elevator system determined based on the feedback information?
In reference to claim 3, how is the walking time to the nearest elevator from a parking space determined based on the vehicle parking information?
In reference to claims 4-6, these claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 1.
In reference to claim 7, how is an elevator call made based on the vehicle parking information?
In reference to claim 8, how is a destination floor determined based on the vehicle parking information?
In reference to claim 9, how is the elevator system controlled based on determining that a parking space is associated with a predefined user or user category?
In reference to claims 10-11, these claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claims 1/9.
In reference to claims 13-14, these claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 1.
In reference to claim 15, how is a high arrival rate of vehicles related to a specific floor in a building used to control an elevator system?
In reference to claim 16, the preamble of claim 16 is directed to an apparatus for controlling an elevator system, however the body of the claim does not provide how the “means” for controlling the elevator system is going to perform the recited “controlling” function based on the vehicle parking information feedback. 35 USC 112(b) requires the claims to clearly point out how a circuit element, “means”, is going to accomplish the recited task. It seems the claim in its current form is incomplete.
In reference to claim 17, how is the “means” for determining at least one element of the elevator system to be controlled based on a location of the at least parking space going to achieve the recited function?
In reference to claim 18, how is the “means” for using the vehicle parking information going to estimate the walking time to the nearest elevator from a parking space?
In reference to claims 19-21, these claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 1.
In reference to claim 22, how is an elevator call made based on the vehicle parking information by the “means” for controlling the elevator system?
In reference to claim 23, how is a destination floor determined based on the vehicle parking information by the “means” for determining a destination floor and how is a destination call made by the “means” for making elevator calls?
In reference to claim 24, how is the “means for determining that the at least one parking space is associated with a predefined user or user category and how does the “means” for controlling the elevator system control the elevator system based on the predefined user or user category?
In reference to claims 25-26, these claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claims 16/24.
In reference to claim 27, this claim is rejected because it depends from claims 16/24.
In reference to claim 28, how does the “means’ for controlling an elevator system use vehicle parking information as an indicator that no elevator passenger traffic is expected from a floor associated with a parking space?
In reference to claim 29, this claim is rejected because it depends from claims 16/28.
In reference to claim 30, how does a “means” for taking a high arrival of vehicles to a specific floor into account control an elevator system?
In reference to claims 31, this claim is rejected because it depends from rejected claim 16.
In reference to claims 32, this claim is rejected because it depends from rejected claim 1.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 31 depends from claim 16 and is directed to an elevator system, however the body of claim 31 only includes a reference to the “apparatus” of claim 16 without listing any other limitation. It seems applicant is trying to claim an intended use for the apparatus of claim 16. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as described below:
The claim(s) recite(s) a computer implemented process for controlling operation of an elevator system. The claims recite a fundamental concept of collecting data and generating a result based on said collected data, which is considered an abstract idea of data analysis and information processing.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it simply uses a generic computer to perform routine data processing without specific technical improvement or a novel way of using a computer processor.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims use a generic processor performing conventional activities without defining specific inventive steps or modifications to obtain a unique process or apparatus.
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) 1-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armistead et al (US Publication 2015/0075914) and Saussele et al (US Publication 2017/0302107).
Although the pending claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101 and 112(a) and (b), prior art will be applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 1, Armistead et al teaches a method for controlling an elevator system comprising: receiving vehicle parking information, using location sensors 22, associated with a parking garage in a building (see paragraph 0019); and controlling the elevator system using, using elevator management system 16, based on the received vehicle parking information (see for example the description given in paragraph 0026).
Although, Armistead et al teaches location sensors 22 being placed in parking garages, they do not describe said sensors being associated with at least one parking space in the parking garage.
However, Saussele et al teaches a smart parking structure comprising a plurality of smart parking sensors 122 including vehicle occupancy sensors 200 associated with each parking spot in the parking structure, wherein the vehicle parking sensor 200 communicates vehicle occupancy data with an Active Parling Lot Management Backend 130, a central controller 112, and other controllers 132 which include an elevator controller (see for example paragraphs 0032 and 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to used vehicle occupancy sensors such as the sensors described by Saussele et al for communicating vehicle parking information to the elevator control system taught by Armistead et al, since said vehicle occupancy sensors provide an elevator control system with real-time vehicle occupancy data that would allow a central elevator controller to optimize passenger flow and ease the transition of an elevator user from car to building access.
Claim 2, Armistead et al describes, paragraph 0012, determining control commands for selecting where and when elevator cars 14 are to be positioned by elevator controller 12.
Claim 3, both Armistead et al and Saussele et al describe using vehicle data to control an elevator system. For example, Armistead et al describes an elevator management system 16 implemented by a microprocessor for controlling operating of an elevator system based on a series of parameters. Programming a computer to estimate, calculate, or determine one or more parameters is considered well known. The specific algorithm used to estimate said parameters is what could be considered patentable subject matter; claim 3 does not recite how the “walking time” is estimated.
Claim 4, Armistead et al describes, paragraph 0012, controlling positioning of an elevator car 14 based on vehicle parking feedback detected by sensors 22.
Claim 5, Armistead et al describes, paragraph 0012, controller 12 for controlling where and when an elevator car will be positioned based on parking information.
Claims 6 and 7, Armistead et al describes an elevator management system 16 interacting with a calendar 18, user interface, and location sensors 22 in order to determine a probable elevator call from a floor associated with a meeting and parking information outputted by the sensors.
Claim 8, Armistead et al describes, paragraph 0013, using a calendar system 18 in combination with an elevator management system 16, and the parking information from sensors 22 to determine a destination floor for an elevator call.
Claim 9, Saussele et al describes, paragraphs 0046 and 0050, associating parking spots with predefined users, wherein the detected information is sent to a central controller 112 which also interacts with controllers 132 that include the elevator controller 120.
Claim 10, both Armistead et al and Saussele et al describe controlling an elevator system based on parking feedback, wherein Armistead et al describes management system 16 deciding where and when to position elevators cars 14 based on information detected by parking information sensor 22 and calendar system 18 (see for example paragraph 0013) in order to allow a user attending a previously scheduled meeting access to an elevator.
Claims 11-12, specific parameters and interfaces controlled by the elevator control system are considered a design choice and are not given any patentable weight. A computer of processor can easily be programmed to adjust a variety of settings in an elevator system for optimal use by a plurality of different users. Applicant has not provided the novel or specific algorithm used to adjust any parameters or interfaces of the elevator system.
Claims 13 and 15, as described above, both Armistead et al and Saussele et al describe the use of vehicle parking sensors for controlling operation of an elevator control system. Therefore, it is obvious an elevator system will adjust the traffic flow and usage of elevator cars based on the detected information.
Claim 14, Armistead et al describes, paragraph 0012, controlling parking of elevator cars 14 based on vehicle parking information.
Claim 32, Armistead et al describes, paragraph 011, their elevator control system being implement by a computer program stored in a memory means and executed by a microprocessor.
CLAIMS 16-31
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 16, Armistead et al teaches an apparatus for controlling an elevator system comprising: means 22 for receiving vehicle parking information associated with a parking garage in a building (see paragraph 0019); and means 16 for controlling the elevator system using based on the received vehicle parking information (see for example the description given in paragraph 0026).
Although, Armistead et al teaches location sensors 22 being placed in parking garages, they do not describe said sensors being associated with at least one parking space in the parking garage.
However, Saussele et al teaches a smart parking structure comprising a plurality of smart parking sensors 122 including vehicle occupancy sensors 200 associated with each parking spot in the parking structure, wherein the vehicle parking sensor 200 communicates vehicle occupancy data with an Active Parling Lot Management Backend 130, a central controller 112, and other controllers 132 which include an elevator controller (see for example paragraphs 0032 and 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to used vehicle occupancy sensors such as the sensors described by Saussele et al for communicating vehicle parking information to the elevator control system taught by Armistead et al, since said vehicle occupancy sensors provide an elevator control system with real-time vehicle occupancy data that would allow a central elevator controller to optimize passenger flow and ease the transition of an elevator user from car to building access.
Claim 17, Armistead et al describes means 12, paragraph 0012, for determining control commands for selecting where and when elevator cars 14 are to be positioned.
Claim 18, both Armistead et al and Saussele et al describe different means for using vehicle parking data to control an elevator system. For example, Armistead et al describes an elevator management system 16 implemented by a microprocessor for controlling operating of an elevator system based on a series of parameters. Programming a computer to estimate, calculate, or determine one or more parameters is considered well known. The specific algorithm used to estimate said parameters is what could be considered patentable subject matter; claim 3 does not recite how the “walking time” is estimated.
Claim 19, Armistead et al describes, paragraph 0012, means 16 for controlling positioning of an elevator car 14 based on vehicle parking feedback detected by sensors 22.
Claim 20, Armistead et al describes, paragraph 0012, means 16 communicating with means 12 for controlling where and when an elevator car will be positioned based on received parking information.
Claims 21 and 22, Armistead et al describes means 16 interacting with a calendar 18, a user interface, and location sensors 22 in order to determine a probable elevator call from a floor associated with a meeting and parking information outputted by the sensors.
Claim 23, Armistead et al describes, paragraph 0013, using means 18 in combination with means 16, and the parking information from sensors 22 to determine a destination floor for an elevator call.
Claim 24, Saussele et al describes, paragraphs 0046 and 0050, means 112 for associating parking spots with predefined users, wherein the detected parking information is analyzed by means 112 that is also in communication with controllers 132 (include the elevator controller 120).
Claim 25, both Armistead et al and Saussele et al describe controlling an elevator system based on parking feedback, wherein Armistead et al describes means16 deciding where and when to position elevators cars 14 based on information detected by parking information sensors 22 and calendar system 18 (see for example paragraph 0013) in order to allow a user attending a previously scheduled meeting access to an elevator.
Claims 26-27, specific parameters and interfaces controlled by the elevator control system are considered a design choice and are not given any patentable weight. A computer of processor can easily be programmed to adjust a variety of settings in an elevator system for optimal use by a plurality of different users. Applicant has not provided the novel or specific algorithm used to adjust any parameters or interfaces of the elevator system.
Claims 28 and 30, as described above, both Armistead et al and Saussele et al describe the use of vehicle parking sensors for controlling operation of an elevator control system. Therefore, it is obvious an elevator system will adjust the traffic flow and usage of elevator cars based on the detected information.
Claim 29, Armistead et al describes, paragraph 0012, controlling parking of elevator cars 14 based on vehicle parking information.
Claim 31, both Armistead et al and Saussele et al describe an elevator system comprising the apparatus recited in claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The documents cited in the attached PTO-892 describe other elevator systems that use vehicle parking information detected in a parking garage.
In order to overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejection, applicant needs to provide the sections of the original specification that include a description of the specific circuit elements (means) which are part of the apparatus recited claims 16-31.
In order to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, applicant needs to provide the novel algorithm used to control the claimed elevator system. The new or improved manner in which applicant has estimated or determine any parameters used in the elevator control system must part of the claimed limitations.
In order to overcome the 35 USC 112(d) rejection, applicant needs to amend claim 31 to include other elements that are part of the claimed elevator system in addition to the “means” recited in claim 16.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, 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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846