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 preliminary amendment filed October 31, 2022. Claims 1-15 have been canceled without prejudice. Claims 16-30 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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 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 24 and 25 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 24 and 25 include the limitation “actuates functionalities of the passenger conveyor system to an unlimited extent after receiving”. However the phrase “to an unlimited extent” renders the claim(s) indefinite. Multiple functionalities are included within an elevator system, most of which occur in a sequential order as a repetitive process, e.g. elevator car stopped at a floor, elevator car doors open, elevator car doors close, elevator car moves to a different floor. It is unclear how functionalities can be actuated unlimitedly since the functionalities would have to be stopped before starting a new functionality, thereby preventing unlimited actuation of the functionalities. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “actuates functionalities of the passenger conveyor system after receiving”.
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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 29 is directed to a computer program product stored on a processor-controlled controller. The claim, nor the specification, distinguishes the claimed computer program product to be stored on a computer-readable medium that is either transitory or non-transitory computer readable mediums. Thus given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed medium may encompass transitory forms of signal transmission and therefore would not be directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP § 2106.03.
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 27-30 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 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 25-31). The first and second configuration parameter are transmitted to the safety device and are compared (step 506) 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, the target configuration parameter related to the first and second configuration parameter is stored in 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).
Claim 17: Uherek et al. discloses a method as stated above, where 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.
Claims 29 and 30: Uherek et al. discloses a method as stated above, where a computer program product is stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and 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).
Conclusion
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 February 4, 2026