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 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitation “processing circuitry” should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the courts have previously found the words “circuit” and “circuitry” to connote sufficient structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of MPEP 2181. Under MPEP 2181, if a claim term uses a generic nonce word as a substitute for “means” paired with purely functional language, then the claim will be interpreted under 35 USC 112f. The Federal Circuit has made clear in Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) that the critical question is whether the words of the claim recite sufficient definite structure for performing the claimed functions. The term “processing circuitry” has been evaluated based on the specific context of the claim language and the description given in the specification. “Processing circuitry” operates as purely generic place holder since it fails to describe any specific physical arrangement or structural components. Claim 1 clearly defines the term as a “black box” tasked to perform: “to receive … signals” and “to make a determination”. Additionally, as pointed out by the examiner during the phone interview on 5/7/26, applicant’s own disclosure of “processing circuitry” clearly describes the “processing circuitry” as a “processor”. Under Federal Circuit precedent, (for example Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited & Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. International Game Technology & IGT, 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)), a general-purpose computer or a standard processor does not constitute adequate structure for a software function. Therefore, under the USPTO’s 3-prong analysis for determining whether a claim limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f) when “means” is absent, the examiner maintains her interpretation of the claimed language.
Does the claim limitation use a non-structural term that is a generic placeholder? Yes, the term “processing circuitry” is a generic placeholder that fails to connote a sufficiently definite physical structure.
Is the non-structural term modified by functional language? Yes. The generic placeholder, “processing circuitry” is modified by purely functional language. The claim recites that the “processing circuitry” is: “to receive” signals and “to make” a determination.
Is the non-structural term modified by sufficient structure? No. The claim contains no structural components. The original disclosure, as pointed out in the phone interview on 5/7/26, equates the “processing circuitry” to a standard “processor”.
In reference to the comments with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) rejection, the examiner will maintain the rejection since the claims will continue to be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
In reference to applicant’s comments with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, applicant only amended the use of a first processing circuitry and a second processing circuitry. Applicant did not clarify how the processing circuitry perform each of the recited functions. Since the recited limitations invoke 35 USC 112(f) and the specification fails to disclose the specific algorithm required to perform the detailed recited computer functions, the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The examiner will maintain the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
In reference to the comments with respect to the 35 USC 112(d) rejection, applicant did not address the examiner’s rejection. As stated previously, claim 1, which claim 10 depends from, has already recited the transmitters. Are the transmitters recited in claim 10 additional transmitters or the same transmitters recited in claim 1?
In reference to applicant’s comments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-13 (amended 1-10 and 12-13), applicant has filed the same “proposed response” discussed during the phone interview on 5/7/26. As pointed out during the phone interview, listing the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance steps and a series of court cases that deal with issues under 35 USC 101 is not a proper response to the rejection of record. Additionally, the examiner already explained, during the phone interview on 5/7/26, why the claims were grouped together in the 101 rejection. The dependent claims only add more functions attributed to the “processing circuitry”. Therefore, all the limitations in the pending claims are performed by the same “processing circuitry”.
Applicant has argued that the claims are directed to a statutory subject matter under 35 USC 101 because it does not recite a mathematical concept, a method for organizing human activity, or a mental process. However, the analysis used in the original rejection demonstrated that the claims are directed to an ineligible abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Are the claims directed to a Judicial Exception? Yes. The claims are directed to an abstract idea falling under a mental process and a method for organizing human activity. The claims recite that the “processing circuitry” is “to make a determination for guiding the user on a basis of the received information”. The processing circuitry also receives a first signal when a user is in a “floor registration mode” and a second signal when the user is in a “registered floor return mode”. The main goal of claim 1, for example, is to gather data (receiving first and second signals) and analyze said data to make a decision (guiding the user). Collecting data and guiding the user based of said data is a logical operation that can be performed in the human mind or on paper. Just because the process is automated via the processing circuitry does not change the nature of the abstract mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application? No. The claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Even though applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a physical system such as an elevator system, the claims only use a standard “processor” and communication devices such as the mobile terminal to execute the abstract user guiding process. The claims do not recite any improvement in the operation of an elevator or wireless communication technology. The claims only use old technology to perform the abstract idea of guiding an elevator user based on a recorded data.
Step 2B: Does the claims recite an inventive concept? No. All the recited “components” such as the elevator, the processor, the mobile device, and transmitters perform their expected functions. Nothing new about tracking user’s location has been recited.
In reference to the comments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection, as described in the non-final rejection of the claims as well as during the phone interview on 5/7/26, the claims have been rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b). The examiner clearly pointed out that the claims as written do not recite how (specific algorithm) any of the listed limitations can be accomplished using the processing circuitry. How does the processing circuitry receive information from elevator halls or mobile terminals, guide any elevators users, determine any information that can be used by an elevator user to reach a desired location? The detailed description of the invention does not help to clarify how the processing circuitry performs each the recited functions. Contrary to applicant’s comments, the examiner has listed specific portions of the applied prior art that teach the limitations. Applicant needs to amend the claims to address the 35 USC 112 rejections so that the examiner can provide a more detailed analysis of what applicant believes his invention to be. Claim 1 has been written as an apparatus claim, however the body of the claim only includes a single element (processing circuitry) performing a series of functions. Claims 2-9 do not recite any structural limitations related to the elevator controller; they only recite “more” functions for the processing circuitry. If applicant believes the structural limitations of his elevator controller is what differentiates his invention from the applied prior art, said structural components and their interconnections must be part of the claims. Additionally, if applicant wants to maintain the “method of operation” recited in claims 2-9, then claim 1 should be amended to recite a method (algorithm) for guiding the movement of a user of an elevator system that is located in a building.
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.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: processing circuitry in claims 1-10 and 12-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 1-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while mentioning an elevator controller implemented by a processing circuitry, does not reasonably provide enablement for how said processing circuitry performs any of the recited functional limitations. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Paragraphs 0087-0091 of the detailed description of the invention provide the only description of an elevator controller including “processing circuitry”. The processing circuitry is described as having a computer 20a (processor) and at least one memory means 20b. However, all applicant has said about how the processing circuit works is that the functions of the processing circuit will be implemented by software, firmware, or a combination of the two.
Claim 1-10 and 12-19 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.
It is not clear how the processing circuitry performs the claimed functions. How does the processing circuitry receive information from elevator halls or mobile terminals, guide any elevators users, determine any information that can be used by an elevator user to reach a desired location? The detailed description of the invention was reviewed to obtain clarification of how the recited processing circuitry accomplishes each the recited functions, however the original detailed description does not provide any useful information. Therefore, prior art will be applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner. Applicant needs to amend the claims to clarify what he believes his invention to be because the claims as written are considered unclear.
Claim 13 is directed to a “mobile terminal” equipped with the non-transitory storage medium of claim 12. Additionally, the preamble of claim 13 needs to be written because the following portion makes no sense: “A mobile terminal equipped with the storage medium according to claim 12 in which the program stored the storage medium is installed”.
Claim 10 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 10 is directed to an elevator system comprising the elevator controller according to claim 1 and transmitters provided at the elevator halls; however, said transmitters are already part of the elevator controller since they are listed under the “processing circuitry”. It seems applicant is trying to claim the obvious intended use for the elevator controller of claim 1. 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. In order to overcome this rejection, applicant needs to delete any reference to the transmitters unless the recited transmitters are different from the ones recited in elevator controller of claim 1.
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 1-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a first processing circuitry and a second processing circuitry receiving data from different sources, determining a guiding path for an elevator user based on the received data, and determining whether or not an elevator user is using the correct elevator when she/he wants to return to a specific location. These limitations describe the concept of receiving information, evaluating the information based on a specific algorithm, and providing output based on the performed evaluation. Such activity falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity, as it involves managing the movement of people within a building. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these elements merely use a computer and elevator control systems as tools to implement the abstract idea. The recited components do not improve the functionality of a computer or improve elevator technology. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because determining routes and providing directions using generic computing components is a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
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) 1-10 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster (US Patent 9945675) and Finschi et al (US Patent 8210321).
The claims have been rejected under 35 USC 112 (a) and (b) as well as 35 USC 101, the examiner will apply prior art to the invention as it is best understood.
Claims 1-10, Schuster teaches a user guidance system 100 comprising: an elevator control system 150, a reader 140, a portable electronic device (mobile terminal) 110, an access control system 160, and a guidance computer 130 for providing directions for a user and information about the user’s environment. A user 204 can access an area 202 such as a building having a lobby, multiple floors, and a parking garage, wherein the area 202 includes a plurality of tags 220/222 read by the portable electronic device 110, the tags contain destination information or particular location within the building. The guidance system uses the reader 140 to obtain signals outputted by the mobile electronic device 110 which has read a tag located at a specific area where the user starts a trip. The elevator user receives travel information such as direction in which the user should move, elevator assignment, a door the user should use, and any other information needed by the user to reach the desired destination (see for example the description given in col. 4 lines 37-67 and col 8 lines 1-6). As described in fig. 6 and corresponding description, the user guidance method can be implemented by a software program running on the guidance computer 130. Additionally, fig. 9 and corresponding description describe transmitters and receivers for allowing a control system to send and receive information with one or more networks.
Although, Schuster describes various computer controlled systems to guide an elevator user to travel to a desired destination within an area such as a building that includes a parking garage, he does not provide an example where the guidance system provides directions to a user to return to the area where he/she started the elevator trip.
However, Finschi et al teaches a method and system for transporting people in a building using an elevator installation, wherein the method of operation comprises: transporting a person from an access story/floor such as an underground garage to a desired destination floor after a person that has entered a building is initially recognized by mobile terminal 13 using movement sensors 13a; using a display 14 to let the person know which elevator to take to travel to his/her desired destination; using speech announcements in the elevator cars to confirm to the passenger his or her desired destination; and automatically transporting passengers back to the start location (return route), see the description given in col. 7 lines 14-62.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to program the computer system taught by Schuster with the sequence described by Finschi et al , since as describe by Finschi et al in col. 9 lines 9-16, their invention can efficiently sort large traffic flow according to destinations, assign transport means in optimal manner, and improve transport performance in that elevator passengers are brought to their desired destinations in the most direct route.
Claim 12, Schuster teach a non-statutory storage medium for storing a computer program directed to a method for transporting people in a multi-story building with an elevator installation, wherein said computer program is executed by a computer (see for example fig. 8 and corresponding description as well as the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 13, Schuster/ Finschi et al describe the computer program directed to a method for transporting people in a multi-story building according to claim 12. Additionally, Schuster describe in fig, 8 and corresponding description a user guidance computer comprising multiple processing circuits such as processors 810.
Claim 14, Schuster describes a floor registration elevator hall information that includes a first position information that is received by a portable device 210 of an elevator user 204, wherein the first position information indicates a position of a transmitted found in a “tag” such as tag 326 labeled “Lobby” which is the location of a floor registration elevator hall. The tag can be located in different areas of the registration hall such as ceiling, floor, or wall (as described in col. 4 lines 8-20).
Claim 15, Schuster describes a floor registration elevator hall (lobby, entrance of the building represented by a transmitter 326) that a user 204 registers as an entrance floor as well as a return floor when the user 204 presents his/her portable device 210 to a reader 140 which is coupled to an elevator control system 150, wherein the portable device receives information from different tags throughout the building to guide the user to a predetermined location.
Claim 16, Schuster describes a user mobile device 210 which is presented to a reader 140 which reads information from the portable device.
Claim 17, Schuster describes a user 204 utilizing a mobile device 210 for receiving information from different transmitters throughout a building, wherein the received information is presented to a reader 140 which can receive the original location of a user when he/she enters a building and a return location that represents the location where the user what to go to. The reader 140 is directly connected to an elevator control system 150.
Claim 18, Schuster teaches a portable device 210 receiving location information from a user obtainer information (tag 326) that lets the portable device know the location of the elevator user, wherein the information stored in the portable device is transmitted to an elevator controller via a reader 140.
Claim 19, Schuster describes a portable device 210 for receiving location information from various obtainers (transmitters or tags), wherein said information is transmitted to an elevator controller via a reader 140. The transmitted information can be the original location (lobby) where the user 204 entered a building and a return location where the user 204 want use to exit the building which can be the lobby or any other preferred location.
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 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
Prosecution Insights