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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being taught by Scoville et al (PGPUB 2017/0291792).
With respect to claim 1, Scoville teaches an elevator comprising:
a plurality of elevator units (fig. 1, 104-1/104-2) each including a car (104-1) and a unit control section (paragraph 0047; 210) that controls operation of the car; and
an operation management device (fig. 1, 106) that manages operation of the plurality of elevator units, wherein,
in a case where it is determined that (paragraph 0055/56) any of the elevator units has left any of passengers behind (fig. 4a, 412), the operation management device additionally and immediately dispatches the car of another elevator unit to a floor where any of passengers (fig. 4a, 416) has been left behind.
With respect to claim 2, Scoville teaches wherein in a case where it is determined that the car of any of the elevator units is in a full-car state (paragraph 0056; determines if more than Pmax), the operation management device determined that any of the passengers is left behind.
With respect to claim 3, Scoville teaches wherein after it is determined that the car of any of the elevator units is in a full-car state (paragraph 0056; determines if more than Pmax), in a case where a load value of the car decreases, the operation management device determines that any of the passengers is left behind.
With respect to claim 4, Scoville teaches wherein the full-car state is a state in a case where it is determined that an in-car density value (paragraph 0056; Pmax, if above sends second car) exceeds a predetermined threshold.
With respect to claim 5, Scoville teaches wherein the in-car density value is a boarding passenger number, and is a value in a case where it is determined that capacity of the elevator exceeds a predetermined threshold (paragraph 0056; Pmax, if above sends second car).
With respect to claim 8, Scoville teaches wherein the operation management device determines presence of left-behind passenger(s) by detection of passenger(s) in a landing (paragraph 0050; 311 senses passengers).
With respect to claim 17, Scoville teaches a control method for an elevator, the elevator including:
a plurality of elevator units (fig. 1, 104-1/104-2) each including a car (104-1) and a unit control section (paragraph 0047; 210) that controls operation of the car; and
an operation management device (fig. 1, 106) that manages operation of the plurality of elevator units,
the control method comprising, in a case where it is determined (paragraph 0055/56) that any of the elevator units has left any of passengers behind (fig. 4a, 412), additionally and immediately dispatching the car of another elevator unit to a floor where any of passengers has been left behind (fig. 4a, 416), by the operation management device.
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) 6, 7, 9-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scoville et al (PGPUB 2017/0291792) in view of Thangavelu (US 5,841,084).
With respect to claim 6, Scoville does not teach wherein the in-car density value is an exposed floor area ratio, and is a value in a case where it is determined that an unexposed floor area exceeds a predetermined threshold.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use floor area to determine passenger car density, 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 7, Scoville teaches wherein each of the elevator units includes an informing device (fig. 3a, 330 display screen) for informing passengers in the car of information.
Scoville does not teach the informing device informs of a full-car state in a case where the operation management device has determined that the car is in the full-car state.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have elevator inform passengers of full car state, 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 9, Scoville does not teach wherein in a case where it is determined that there is no allocatable elevator unit when the car is to be immediately dispatched, the operation management device re-registers a landing call to an arrival floor of the car determined to have left any of the passengers behind, and puts allocation of the re-registered landing call on hold.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have elevator re-register a landing call, 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 10, Scoville teaches an elevator comprising:
a plurality of elevator units (fig. 1, 104-1/104-2) each including a car and a unit control section that controls operation of the car; and
an operation management device (fig. 1, 106) that manages operation of the plurality of elevator units.
Scoville does not teach wherein the operation management device includes a multi-car dispatch control part that controls intensive car dispatch to a given landing floor, and
the multi-car dispatch control part corrects a threshold used in multi-car dispatch control using a full-car threshold, and, on a basis of the threshold used in the multi-car dispatch control, determines whether to perform the intensive car dispatch and calculate a number of cars to be dispatched in the intensive car dispatch.
Thangavelu teach wherein the operation management device includes a multi-car dispatch control part (fig. 3, 118) that controls intensive car dispatch to a given landing floor (column 10, lines 24-37), and
the multi-car dispatch control part corrects a threshold used (column 12, lines 10-33) in multi-car dispatch control using a full-car threshold, and, on a basis of the threshold used in the multi-car dispatch control, determines whether to perform the intensive car dispatch and calculate a number of cars to be dispatched in the intensive car dispatch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a multi-car dispatch in elevator dispatch as it yields predictable results.
With respect to claim 11, Scoville does not teach wherein the operation management device corrects a predicted boarding passenger number using the full-car threshold, and performs the intensive car dispatch control on a basis of the corrected predicted boarding passenger number.
Thangavelu teaches wherein the operation management device corrects a predicted boarding passenger number using (column 13, lines 41-57) the full-car threshold, and performs the intensive car dispatch control on a basis of the corrected predicted boarding passenger number. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to predict passengers numbers in elevator dispatch as it yields dynamic dispatch time operations.
With respect to claim 12, Scoville does not teach wherein the operation management device calculates a transportable passenger number per unit time slot on a basis of the full-car threshold, and corrects the predicted boarding passenger number to be at a maximum of the calculated transportable passenger number.
Thangavelu teach wherein the operation management device calculates a transportable passenger number per unit time slot (column 13, lines 41-57) on a basis of the full-car threshold, and corrects the predicted boarding passenger number to be at a maximum of the calculated transportable passenger number. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to predict passengers per time slot in elevator dispatch as it yields dynamic dispatch time operations.
With respect to claim 13, Scoville does not teach wherein the operation management device calculates a time slot in which all passengers of the predicted boarding passenger number complete boarding the car on a basis of the corrected predicted boarding passenger number.
Thangavelu teaches wherein the operation management device calculates a time slot in (column 13, lines 41-57) which all passengers of the predicted boarding passenger number complete boarding the car on a basis of the corrected predicted boarding passenger number. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to predict passengers per time slot in elevator dispatch as it yields dynamic dispatch time operations.
With respect to claim 14, Scoville teaches wherein each of the elevator units includes an informing device (fig. 3a, 330 display screen) for informing waiting passengers in a landing of information.
Scoville does not teach the informing device informs of a time slot in which all passengers of the predicted boarding passenger number calculated by the operation management device complete boarding the car. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have elevator inform passengers of full car state, 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, Scoville does not teach wherein in a case where the intensive car dispatch has been performed by the multi-car dispatch control, the operation management device corrects the predicted boarding passenger number used in control by the multi-car dispatch control part on a basis of a reference full-car threshold before rewriting.
Thangavelu teaches wherein in a case where the intensive car dispatch has been performed by the multi-car dispatch control, the operation management device corrects the predicted boarding passenger number used (column 13, lines 41-57) in control by the multi-car dispatch control part on a basis of a reference full-car threshold before rewriting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to predict passengers numbers in elevator dispatch as it yields dynamic dispatch time operations.
With respect to claim 16, Scoville does not teach wherein the operation management device calculates a transportable passenger number per unit time slot on a basis of the reference full-car threshold, and corrects the predicted boarding passenger number to be at a maximum of the calculated transportable passenger number.
Thangavelu teaches wherein the operation management device calculates a transportable passenger number per unit time slot (column 13, lines 41-57) on a basis of the reference full-car threshold, and corrects the predicted boarding passenger number to be at a maximum of the calculated transportable passenger number. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to predict passengers numbers in elevator dispatch as it yields dynamic dispatch time operations.
With respect to claim 18, Scoville teaches control method for an elevator, the elevator including:
a plurality of elevator units (fig. 1, 104-1/104-2) each including a car (104-1) and a unit control section (paragraph 0047; 210) that controls operation of the car; and
an operation management device (fig. 1, 106) that manages operation of the plurality of elevator units.
Scoville does not teach wherein the operation management device includes a multi-car dispatch control part that controls intensive car dispatch to a given landing floor, and
the multi-car dispatch control part corrects a threshold used in multi-car dispatch control using a full-car threshold, and, on a basis of the threshold used in the multi-car dispatch control, determines whether to perform the intensive car dispatch and calculate a number of cars to be dispatched in the intensive car dispatch.
Thangavelu teach wherein the operation management device includes a multi-car dispatch control part (fig. 3, 118) that controls intensive car dispatch to a given landing floor (column 10, lines 24-37), and
the multi-car dispatch control part corrects a threshold used (column 12, lines 10-33) in multi-car dispatch control using a full-car threshold, and, on a basis of the threshold used in the multi-car dispatch control, determines whether to perform the intensive car dispatch and calculate a number of cars to be dispatched in the intensive car dispatch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a multi-car dispatch in elevator dispatch as it yields predictable results.
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