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 .
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.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) 14-26, does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer is doing all the action (here an abstract idea) of; receives a configured parameter, transmitting a configured parameter, storing a configured parameter, compares configured parameter and controls functionalities to agreement, according to independent claim 14.
And there is insufficient action/process to method steps, where signals are read/transmitted between devices and action is executed by passenger transport system/physical devices to produce an output. All the steps just seem to transit, receive, store, configure, a parameter without tangible output. Prior Art will be applied below in its broadest reasonable interpretation of claims at time of examination.
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.
Claim 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 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.
With respect to claim 14, (lines 9-11) it is unclear and indefinite of what is meant by “storing a configured parameter in the safety device, the configured parameter based upon the received configuration parameter, thereby transferring the safety device into the "configured" state”.
Safety device receives configured parameters, then becomes configured state. Was safety device unconfigured or not configured before ? Does it stay configured once signal received or does it need new signal to reconfigure ?
It is unclear and indefinite of what is meant by (claim 14, lines 24-27) “wherein the controller controls the functionalities of the passenger transport system when a predetermined sufficient agreement between the configured parameter and the target configuration parameter is determined by the comparison.” States that functionality is controlled through predetermined agreement, but does not say what agreement is or what functionality is, or how/what functionality is accomplished.
With respect to claim 16, (lines 4-7) it is unclear and indefinite of what is meant by “transmits a "sealed" signal to the controller, wherein, prior to receiving the "sealed" signal, the controller actuates the functionalities of the passenger transport system at most to a limited extent, and, after receiving the "sealed" signal, actuates the functionalities of the passenger transport system to a full extent.” It is not clear what is meant by “sealed” signal and before signal “at most to limited extent” vs “to full extent”.
With respect to claim 17, (lines 2-7) it is unclear and indefinite of what is meant by “receiving the "sealed" signal, switches to a sealed state and transmits an "acknowledged" signal to the controller, and the controller actuates the functionalities of the passenger transport system, before a reception of the "acknowledged" signal, at most to the limited extent and, after the reception of the "acknowledged" signal, activates the functionalities of the passenger transport system to the full extent.” Sealed and acknowledged signal both seem to actuate/activate system to full extent. Its not clear if they are in different systems, transmitted on different lines, or flow in different directions.
With respect to claim 19, (lines 2-3) it is unclear and indefinite of what is meant by “configured data represents a state to be assumed for each of a plurality of pixels of the display”. It is not clear of how state of device is assumed for each of plurality of pixels ? Are different pixels eligible according to state of device ?
With respect to claim 20, (lines 2-3) it is unclear and indefinite of what is meant by “wherein each of the several configured data encodes a different item of the graphic information”. It is unclear of what a different item of configured data is or it contains ?
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) 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herkel et al (PGPUB 2017/0355560), and further in view of Finn et al (PGPUB 2016/0297642).
With respect to claim 14, Herkel teaches a method for operating a passenger transport system, the passenger transport system having a controller controlling functionalities of the passenger transport system and a safety device for monitoring a safety-relevant function of the passenger transport system, wherein the safety device is transferred into a "configured" state by storing a configured parameter and then monitors the safety-relevant function according to predefined specifications, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving (paragraph 0029; position from encoder) a configuration parameter using the controller (fig. 1, 22);
transmitting the (paragraph 0006; determine braking in response to position) configuration parameter from the controller to the safety device (fig. 2, 32);
storing a configured parameter (paragraph 0040; braking parameter) in the safety device, the configured parameter based upon the received configuration parameter, thereby transferring the safety device into the "configured" state (paragraph 0037; emergency stop);
transmitting configured data (paragraph 0038; determines braking time) from the safety device to the controller,
comparing the (paragraph 0039) configured parameter reproduced by the read-out graphic information with a target configuration parameter (paragraph 0039; step 52 satisfactory) using the data processing device;
transmitting a result of the comparison (paragraph 0040) from the data processing device to the controller; and
wherein the controller controls the functionalities of the passenger transport system when a predetermined sufficient agreement (paragraph 0041; automatic monitoring of braking parameter) between the configured parameter and the target configuration parameter is determined by the comparison.
Herkel does not teach wherein the configured data encodes graphic information;
showing the graphic information on a display connected to the controller, wherein the graphic information uniquely reproduces the configured parameter in a visual, machine-readable manner;
reading out the graphic information using an optical read-out sensor of a mobile, processor-controlled data processing device.
Finn teaches wherein the configured data encodes graphic information (paragraph 0029; call/cancel contain occupancy data and notifications to users);
showing the graphic information on a display (fig. 1, 111) connected to the controller (fig. 1, 109), wherein the graphic information uniquely reproduces the configured parameter in a visual, machine-readable manner (paragraph 0029; occupancy data and notifications are displayed to user);
reading out the graphic information using an optical read-out sensor of a mobile (paragraph 0035; phone w processor), processor-controlled data processing device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a display that show parameters in the passenger system of Henkel, as shown by Finn, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 15, Herkel teaches wherein the controller actuates the functionalities of the passenger transport system being an elevator system (fig. 1) such that an elevator car (fig. 1, 12) of the elevator system is only moved in an elevator shaft (fig. 1, 24) after the predetermined sufficient agreement (paragraph 0039-0040; compares and determines satisfactory, moves in compliance of current braking) between the configured parameter and the target configuration parameter has been established during the comparison.
With respect to claim 16, Herkel does not teach wherein the data processing device outputs the configured parameter reproduced by the read-out graphic information to a person and, upon confirmation of the configured parameter by the person, transmits a "sealed" signal to the controller, wherein, prior to receiving the "sealed" signal, the controller actuates the functionalities of the passenger transport system at most to a limited extent, and, after receiving the "sealed" signal, actuates the functionalities of the passenger transport system to a full extent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for passenger system to contain “sealed” signals, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 17, Herkel does not teach wherein the controller transmits the "sealed" signal to the safety device, the safety device, upon receiving the "sealed" signal, switches to a sealed state and transmits an "acknowledged" signal to the controller, and the controller actuates the functionalities of the passenger transport system, before a reception of the "acknowledged" signal, at most to the limited extent and, after the reception of the "acknowledged" signal, activates the functionalities of the passenger transport system to the full extent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for passenger system to contain “sealed” and “acknowledged” signals, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 18, Herkel teaches wherein the configured data is not modified by the controller (paragraph 0038; determines braking time which isn’t modified) before the showing of the graphic information on the display.
With respect to claim 19, Herkel does not teach wherein the graphic information encoded in the configured data represents a state to be assumed for each of a plurality of pixels of the display.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for configured data to be shown on display, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 20, Herkel does not teach wherein several of the configured data are transmitted to the controller sequentially by the safety device, wherein each of the several configured data encodes a different item of the graphic information, wherein each of the graphic information items is shown on the display connected to the controller, and wherein each of the graphic information items uniquely reproduces the configured parameter in a visual, machine-readable manner.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for different items of configured data to be shown on display, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 21, Herkel does not teach wherein several partial information items, each encoding partial information of a graphic information item, are shown sequentially on the display connected to the controller, and wherein a sum of the partial information items uniquely reproduces the configured parameter in a visual, machine- readable manner.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for configured data partial and sum are to be shown on display, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 22, Herkel does not teach wherein the controller receives the configuration parameter by a manual input performed by a person at a human/machine interface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for configured data can be manually inputted, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 23, Herkel does not teach wherein the controller receives the configuration parameter from the mobile, processor-controlled data processing device that is temporarily connected to the controller for data exchange.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for passenger system to receive parameters from mobile device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 24, Herkel teaches wherein the controller receives the configuration parameter by retrieving data from a remotely located database (paragraph 0040).
With respect to claim 25, Herkel does not teach wherein the data in the database was created in a design process and/or during a commissioning of the passenger transport system and either contain the configuration parameter or from which the configuration parameter can be derived.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to for passenger system to contain design process, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to claim 26, Herkel teaches wherein the controller receives the configuration parameter from a data memory (paragraph 0040) coupled to the controller for data exchange.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICK DAVID GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-8395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri_8-5pm.
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.
/ERICK D GLASS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846