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 applicant’s amendment filed May 11, 2026. Claims 17 and 30 have been canceled without prejudice. Claims 16 and 18-29 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Rejections of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered and are addressed below.
Specification
The amended title of the invention filed May 11, 2026 is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 16, 18, 22 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uherek et al. (US 4,494,628).
Claim 16: Uherek et al. discloses a method for operating a passenger conveyor system (elevator system 10) having a controller (car controller 60) for controlling functionalities (movement) of the passenger conveyor system (column 4 lines 12-14) and a safety device comprised of a plurality of function modules for monitoring a safety-relevant function of the passenger conveyor system (column 7 lines 16-20). The safety device is configurable to a "configured" state by storing a target configuration parameter (binary value corresponding to a height of each floor) (column 7 line 63 through column 8 line 5) to then monitor the safety-relevant function according to predetermined specifications (whether length of zone and DTG count are within a predetermined tolerance) in which the controller receives a first configuration parameter (length of zone) and a second configuration parameter (DTG count) created (derived) from a pulse wheel count independently of the first configuration parameter, where the first configuration parameter and the second configuration parameter relate to a same target configuration parameter of a target floor (column 2 lines 25-37). The first and second configuration parameter are transmitted to the safety device and are compared (step 506) (column 9 lines 52-54) in the safety device via module (PGDEC), as shown in FIG. 7 and, in response to the first configuration parameter and the second configuration parameter matching within a prespecified tolerance (less than K1), the target configuration parameter related to the first and second configuration parameter is stored in a location (x) of the safety device and transmitting "configured" signal from the safety device to the controller; wherein the controller controls the functionalities of the passenger conveyor system (door operator control 66) according to whether it has received the "configured" signal (column 9 line 48 through column 10 line 4). The passenger conveyor system is an elevator system and the controller controls an elevator car of the elevator system (column 4 lines 12-14). If the “configured” signal is not received as expected, it is determined that a malfunction has occurred, the elevator car taken out of service and is not allowed to move (run) indicates a malfunction has occurred (column 10 lines 31-44). Therefore the controller controls the elevator car to only move in an elevator shaft after the controller receives the “configured” signal.
Claim 18: Uherek et al. discloses a method as stated above, where the controller receives the first configuration parameter and the second configuration parameter during movement of the elevator car toward a target floor (column 2 lines 25-31). Pushbuttons (40, 42, 44) mounted in hallways allow a person to call an elevator car for starting movement of the elevator car to a target floor (column 5 lines 31-37, 50-54). Therefore the controller receives the first and second configuration parameters in response to a manual input by a person at a human/machine interface (push bottoms).
Claim 22: Uherek et al. discloses a method as stated above, where the controller receives the first configuration parameter by retrieving data from a data memory (ROM 88) (column 9 lines 48-52) that is coupled to the controller for data exchange during movement of the elevator car (column 7 line 66 through column 8 line 5).
Claim 27: Uherek et al. discloses a method where the first and second configuration parameter are received at the controller and transmitted from the controller to the safety device and are compared in the safety device, as stated above. A dataset representing the first configuration parameter and the second configuration parameter then would not modified by the controller before the dataset is transmitted by the controller to the safety device to ensure proper comparison at the safety device.
Claim 28: Uherek et al. discloses a method, where a passenger conveyor system comprises: a controller for controlling functionalities of the passenger conveyor system; a safety device for monitoring a safety-relevant function of the passenger conveyor system; wherein the safety device is configurable to a "configured" state by storing a target configuration parameter to then monitor the safety-relevant function according to predetermined specifications, as stated above. The controller and the safety device are adapted to perform or control the method, as is recognized in the art.
Claim 29: Uherek et al. discloses a method as stated above, where a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprises a computer program product stored thereon comprises at least one computer program means for performing the method when the computer program means is loaded into a processor-controlled controller for controlling functionalities of a passenger conveyor system and a processor-controlled safety device for monitoring a safety-relevant function of the passenger conveyor system (column 6 lines 48-51, 62-65)
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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uherek et al. (US 4,494,628) in view of Lewis (US 4,630,026).
Claim 19: Uherek et al. discloses a method as stated above, where the first configuration parameter is stored in a database (column 7 lines 63-68), and therefore is retrieved from the database to receive the first configuration parameter. This reference fails to disclose the database to be an external database.
However Lewis teaches a method for operating a passenger conveyor system, where first configuration parameters corresponding to position information are stored in an external database (PROM 84) (column 4 lines 32-39).
Given the teachings of Lewis, 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 method disclosed in Uherek et al. with providing the database to be an external database. Doing so would alleviate the “disadvantage that the elevator control generates a standardized binary signal for each floor of a building regardless of the indication to be generated for that floor … [and] requiring customization of both the elevator control and the position indicator and further complicating the task of installing such a system” as taught in Lewis (column 1 lines 26-39).
Claim 20: Uherek et al. modified by Lewis discloses a method where the first configuration parameter is stored in a database, as stated above. The data in the database then contains the first configuration parameter, and would have been created during a design process of the external database, as is recognized in the art.
Claims 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uherek et al. (US 4,494,628) in view of Simcik et al. (US 10,315,884 B2).
Claim 21: Uherek et al. discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose the controller to receive the first configuration parameter and/or the second configuration parameter from a mobile, processor-controlled data processing device that is adapted to be coupled temporarily to the controller for data exchange.
However Simcik et al. teaches a method for operating a passenger conveyor system, where a controller receives first configuration parameter corresponding to a source floor from a mobile, processor-controlled data processing device to dispatch an elevator to the source floor (mobile device) (column 1 lines 50-54). The first configuration parameter comprises an elevation or altitude of the mobile device relative to the ground to provide the source floor (column 2 lines 47-59). The mobile device is further adapted to be coupled temporarily to the controller for data exchange (column 3 lines 29-34).
Given the teachings of Simcik 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 method disclosed in Uherek et al. with providing the controller to receive the first configuration parameter and/or the second configuration parameter from a mobile, processor-controlled data processing device that is adapted to be coupled temporarily to the controller for data exchange. Doing so would allow “for automatically dispatching an elevator based on a user’s location” as taught in Simcik et al. (column 1 lines 42-43) by automatically determining a source floor of the user (column 2 lines 21-22).
Claim 23: Uherek et al. discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose the controller to transmit the target configuration parameter to a mobile, processor-controlled data processing device.
However Simcik et al. teaches a method for operating a passenger conveyor system, where a controller transmits target configuration parameter corresponding to a source floor and destination floor to a mobile, processor-controlled data processing device (mobile device) for confirmation of the determined source floor (column 1 lines 52-60).
Given the teachings of Simcik 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 method disclosed in Uherek et al. with providing the controller to transmit the target configuration parameter to a mobile, processor-controlled data processing device. Doing so would allow a user to confirm a source floor and destination floor as taught in Simcik et al. (column 1 lines 55-60) which are automatically determined by a system (column 2 lines 21-23).
Claim 24: Uherek et al. discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose the data processing device to output the target configuration parameter to a person and, when the person confirms at the data processing device that the target configuration parameter is correct, the data processing device to send a "sealed" signal to the controller, wherein the controller actuates the functionalities of the passenger conveyor system at most to a limited extent before receiving the "sealed" signal, and the controller actuates the functionalities of the passenger conveyor system after receiving the "sealed" signal.
However Simcik et al. teaches a method for operating a passenger conveyor system, where a data processing device (mobile device) outputs a target configuration parameter corresponding to a source floor and destination floor to a person (user) for confirmation (column 1 lines 50-60). When the person confirms at the data processing device that the target configuration parameter is correct, the data processing device sends a "sealed" signal to a controller indicating a confirmed source floor and destination floor, wherein the controller does not move an elevator car of the passenger conveyor system—and therefore actuates functionalities of the passenger conveyor system at most to a limited extent—before receiving the "sealed" signal, and the controller actuates the functionalities of the passenger conveyor system (dispatches an elevator to the source floor and places a call request to the destination floor) after receiving the "sealed" signal (column 3 lines 26-34).
Given the teachings of Simcik 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 method disclosed in Uherek et al. with providing the data processing device to output the target configuration parameter to a person and, when the person confirms at the data processing device that the target configuration parameter is correct, the data processing device to send a "sealed" signal to the controller, wherein the controller actuates the functionalities of the passenger conveyor system at most to a limited extent before receiving the "sealed" signal, and the controller actuates the functionalities of the passenger conveyor system after receiving the "sealed" signal. Doing so would allow a user to confirm a source floor and destination floor as taught in Simcik et al. (column 1 lines 55-60) which are automatically determined by a system (column 2 lines 21-23).
Claim 25: Uherek et al. modified by Simcik et al. discloses a method where the controller transmits first and second configuration parameters to the safety device, and controls the functionalities of the passenger conveyor system in response to receiving the target configuration parameter from the safety device, and further receives a “sealed” signal in response to the target configuration parameter being confirmed by a person, as stated above. The controller then would transmit the "sealed" signal corresponding to the confirmed target configuration parameter to the safety device in which the safety device would be changed to a sealed state, and the controller would not move an elevator car—and therefore actuate the functionalities of the passenger conveyor system at most to a limited extent—before receiving an "acknowledged" signal from the safety device regarding the received target configuration parameter that was confirmed, and would actuate the functionalities of the passenger conveyor system after receiving an "acknowledged" signal from the safety device regarding the received target configuration parameter that was confirmed.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uherek et al. (US 4,494,628) in view of Kattainen et al. (US 12,515,921 B2).
Claim 26: Uherek et al. discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose the first configuration parameter and/or the second configuration parameter to be each transmitted from the controller to the safety device together with a checksum characterizing the respective configuration parameters.
However Kattainen et al. teaches a method for operating a passenger conveyor system, where information is communicated with a safety device (elevator safety controller 104) with a checksum characterizing the respective information (column 4 lines 16-21).
Given the teachings of Kattainen 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 method disclosed in Uherek et al. with providing the first configuration parameter and/or the second configuration parameter to be each transmitted from the controller to the safety device together with a checksum characterizing the respective configuration parameters. Doing so would “establish safe communications, different kind of data checks [and] error detection … in the communication” as taught in Kattainen et al. (column 4 lines 18-21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 9 of the response that “Uherek is directed to an entirely different technical problem than the present application”. However Uherek et al. was relied on as an anticipatory reference under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). “Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is ‘nonanalogous art’ or ‘teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not ‘germane’ to a rejection under section 102." Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986). Therefore Uherek et al. properly anticipated applicant’s invention as required by the independent claim.
Applicant further states on page 10 that a “ROM is not writable during normal operation” and “the floor height values in Uherek are pre-stored in ROM 88 and are not dynamically written or stored as the result of a comparison of two independently created configuration parameters”. However Uherek et al. discloses that a length of zone configuration parameter, which is fixed and stored in ROM as a constant, and a DTG count configuration parameter derived from a pulse wheel count are compared (column 2 lines 27-31, column 9 lines 48-52). The DTG configuration parameter is determined based on the elevator car’s current position (column 8 lines 59-63), and therefore changes as the elevator car’s position changes. The two compared configuration parameters then are created independently. An absolute value of a difference between the configuration parameters is stored in location “x” in ROM so as to check wither the difference is less than a predetermined value (K1) (column 9 lines 52-57). Therefore Uherek et al. properly discloses a first and second configuration parameter created independently to be compared, and when the first and second configuration parameter match within a prespecified tolerance, a target configuration parameter related to the first and second configuration parameter to be stored. Uherek et al. then properly anticipates applicant’s limitation as required by the independent claim.
Additionally, applicant states that the length of zone and DTG count “values are fundamentally different in nature … [and] do not ‘relate to a same target configuration parameter’ as stated by Claim 16, because they are not two independently created representations of the same desired configuration parameter”. However Uherek et al. discloses the DTG count parameter to be a distance-to-go for an elevator car to travel to a target floor, and computed by “subtracting the count value representative of the current position of the elevator car from the count value of the AVP floor” (column 8 lines 59-63). The length of zone is described to be a distance between the beginning of a zone to a corresponding target floor (column 11 lines 43-47). At the instant that the elevator car is detected to be in zone Z02, the DTG count is compared with the known length of zone Z02 as an absolute value of the difference between the two (column 9 lines 48-54) because when the elevator car reaches the beginning of the zone, a distance from the car to the target floor is equal to the length of zone (column 11 lines 43-50). In order for a difference between two values to be computed, the two values must relate to a same parameter. The DTG count and length of zone then are related to a same parameter indicating a distance to a target floor. As shown above, the DTG count and length of zone count are independently created since one is a fixed value stored in ROM, and the other is computed based on an elevator car’s current position. Therefore Uherek et al. properly discloses the first and second configuration parameter to be created independently and relate to a same target configuration parameter, as required by applicant’s independent claim.
On page 11, applicant states that Claim 16 “necessitates the involvement of two separate devices: a controller that receives the configuration parameters, and a separate safety device to which those parameters are transmitted and in in the comparison takes place”. However it was shown that Uherek et al. disclosed a car controller (60) for controlling movement of an elevator car (column 4 lines 12-14), and a safety device comprises a plurality of function modules for monitoring safety-relevant functions (column 7 lines 16-20). The safety device “is periodically run throughout the entire run of the elevator car, as well as when the elevator car is standing at a floor” (column 7 lines 20-23). Therefore movement functions of the car controller and operations of the safety device are distinct from each other and would be performed by separate components within the car controller, as is recognized in the art. It should be noted that the claims do not require the safety device to be a separate device from the controller. As shown in FIG. 1, car controller (60) includes multiple components which communicate with various ones or several other components within the car controller. The first and second configuration parameters then would be transmitted to at least one of the plurality of function modules within the controller after being received by the controller. Uherek et al. then properly describes a controller for receiving the first and second configuration parameters, and a safety device in which the first and second configuration parameters are transmitted, as required by applicant’s independent claim.
Applicant argues that “Claim 16 recites a one-time configuration event that transitions the system from a restricted operating state to a fully operational state” because “the specification makes clear that the controller controls the system differently after receiving the target configuration parameter or the ‘configured’ signal than before the reception”. However the claims only broadly describe “a controller [to] control the functionalities of the passenger conveyor system according to whether it has received the target configuration parameter and/or “configured signal”. The claims do not further limit the functionalities of the passenger conveyor system to a one-time configuration event, nor do they define multiple operational states of the system that are to be controlled based on the reception of the target configuration parameter and/or the “configured” parameter. It has been established that limitations from the specification are not to be imported into the claims. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore according the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, Uherek et al. properly anticipates applicant’s invention as required by the claim limitations.
Applicant further states that the limitations of Claim 16 “ensures that the elevator car is only moved after the safety device has been configured” and “there is no disclosure of withholding car movement until a configuration signal or parameter is received”. However as shown above, the claim language only broadly describe functionalities of the passenger conveyor system to be controlled based on reception of the target configuration parameter and/or the “configured” signal. Also as shown above, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims. The claims do not define the functionality to be related to movement or non-movement of the elevator car. Therefore according the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, Uherek et al. properly anticipates applicant’s invention as required by the claim limitations.
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 August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights