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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/13/26 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under 35 USC 101 and 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the new added limitations to the independent claims have created several 112a and 112b issues. New grounds of rejection, 35 USC 112(a) and (b), will be introduced in this Final Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 5/13/26 is objected to because:
Claim 1, the new added information implies the unmanned device performs the action of executing, controlling, and possessing the physical serial port connection located within the elevator since the preamble states “applied to the unmanned device”. The claim in its current form requires the unmanned device to perform every single step of the method.
In reference to claim 13, the original documents do not describe an elevator controlling device actively routing or handling complex data through the cloud to the robot. The preamble states that the recited method will be “applied to the elevator controlling device”. The claim in its current form requires the elevator controlling device to perform every single step of the method.
In reference to claim 15, the specification does not describe a cloud server physically commanding mechanical movement of the robot to enter the target elevator car. The preamble states that the recited method is “applied to the cloud platform”, please refer back to the “such that” clause related to the movement of the unmanned device. The claim in its current form requires the cloud platform to perform every single step of the method.
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.
Claims 1-19 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Please see the comments under “Response to Amendment” above.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claim 1, the preamble states that the method is “applied to the unmanned device”, which gives the impression the unmanned device is solely performing the recited algorithm. However, the step of “receiving real-time running information…wherein…the elevator controlling device of the at least one elevator is connected with a control board of the at least one elevator through a physical port line”, introduces structural limitations of an elevator system that cannot be performed or controlled by the unmanned device. It is unclear whether the claim is directed to a method of operating the unmanned device to utilize an elevator, or a structural configuration of an elevator system since structural interconnection of circuit elements have been recited. The boundaries and scope of the claim are unclear since the claim is written as a method/apparatus claim. In order to overcome this rejection, applicant must frame the structural components, serial port/control board/elevator controlling device, as the environment (background) in which the method operates, rather than actions the unmanned device takes. The preamble could be amended as: “A method for an unmanned device to utilize an elevator, the method comprising:”. The wherein clause could be amended as: “wherein, the real-time running information is obtained from a control board of the at least one elevator via a physical serial port line…”. These proposed changes would overcome the 101 rejection and fix the now introduced 112(a) and (b) problems.
In reference to independent claim 13, similar issues as described with respect to claim 1. Now the preamble is focused on the elevator controlling device instead of the unmanned device. The preamble states the recited method is “applied to an elevator controlling device”. Therefore, the elevator controlling device must perform every step of the recited algorithm. The problems is that the elevator controlling device cannot control what happens inside the cloud platform. The claim must frame the cloud and the unmanned device as an external environment interacting with the elevator device. The preamble should read as: “An elevator controlling method, applied to an elevator controlling device connected to an elevator control board through a physical serial port line, the method comprising:”. By moving the structural components to the preamble, the claim will be clearly directed to “the method”.
In reference to claim 15, the preamble restricts the method to the cloud platform. A cloud platform cannot physically enter an elevator. Just like claims 1 and 13, structural components, control board and physical serial port line of an elevator system/building hardware, have been improperly added to the claim. The wherein clause could be amended as: “wherein, the real-time running information is obtained by the elevator controlling device via a physical serial port line connected to an elevator control board”. Additionally, the transmitting step should be amended to clarify that it is the unmanned device which selects the target elevator instead of the cloud platform.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional documents, which described mobile robots in elevator settings, have been listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Additionally, any amendments to fix the 35 USC 112(a) and (b) issues described herein, introduced by the response dated 5/13/26, should be filed with a proper RCE.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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 2837
Prosecution Insights