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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/22/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hikita and Hughes et al as described below.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-14 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1-7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As stated in the Final Office Action dated 6/22/26, both sets of claims are directed to a method performed by a group controller.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A-Prong 1: The core concept of claim 1 is directed to a mathematical algorithm that includes a comparison of forecast times of at least two elevator cars in order to select one of said cars to provide a service call.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Does the claim integrate the exception into a practical application? No, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional recited steps receiving a service call, dividing a group of elevators into sub-groups, selecting a sub-group, evaluating each of the elevators in a sub-group, selecting one of the elevators to respond to the service call, and assigning (controlling) the chosen elevator to fulfill the service call are considered generic or conventional computer routine activities in an elevator system. The new “controlling step” is considered an insignificant post-solution activity since using or executing the result of an abstract calculation does not turn the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Also, mentioning physical elements such as buildings, elevators cars, and shafts only describe the environment in which the abstract algorithm will be used; the claim does not recite that these physical components are in any way altered or improved.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not integrate the abstract idea into a technological solution that improves the elevator system itself or the elevator group controller.
Claims 2-7 do not add any limitation that would convert the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Claims 8-14 as discussed above are considered duplicates of claims 1-7, therefore they are rejected for the same reason as claims 1-7.
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason given in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 16 depends on claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons given above.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikita (US Patent 6360849) and Hughes et al (US Patent 8172043)].
Claims 1 and 8, Hikita teaches a method for controlling passenger flow in a building that includes a plurality of elevators, the method is performed by group controller 1 and comprises: Dividing the plurality of elevators into sub-groups controlled by car controllers 2A and 2B, each sub-group (upper car and lower car) is contained in a single shaft (#A, #B); receiving a service call (Fig. 3, step S30); selecting a sub-group (shaft) among the sub-groups of elevators and generating an indication of the selected sub-group for the service call (Fig. 3, S33); selecting a first candidate elevator car (upper car or lower car) to provide the service call within a first forecast time (Fig. 3, S33 as well as col. 4 lines 23-47); evaluating a second candidate (elevator car) to provide the service call within a second forecast time (Fig. 3, S34-S35); selecting either the first candidate elevator car or the second candidate elevator car to provide the service for the service call based on the comparison between the first forecast time and the second forecast tome (see col. 4 lines 61-67 and col. 5 lines 1-2); continuing the evaluation of what car can provide the requested service call until the a selection is locked (fig. 3, S36-S7, col. 5 lines 3-14); and controlling either the first elevator car or the second elevator car to fulfill the service call based on the selection being locked, wherein locking depends on whether or not the assigned car has started a stopping operation (see for example col. 11 lines 4-10).
Although Hikita teaches calculating and comparing forecast times to select a candidate elevator car, he primary focused on elevators within a single shaft. However, he explicitly teaches in col. 11 lines 33-45 using of a plurality of shafts.
Hikita fails to describe the subgroups including cars in different shafts. However, Hughes et al teaches an elevator dispatching system comprising a plurality of elevator cars divided into subgroups, wherein the subgroups are multi-shaft subgroups as described in fig. 1 and corresponding description.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hikita’s forecasting logic to operate across the separate shafts of Hughes et al to achieve a predictable result optimizing overall building passenger flow. Additionally, choosing whether to evaluate cars inside the same shaft or across different shafts is a mere design choice.
Claims 2 and 9, Hikita teaches selecting the sub-group based on at least a destination floor indicated in the service call (see for example the description of figures 2A-2C in col. 5 lines 34-67 and col. 6 lines 1-24).
Claims 3 and 10, Hikita teaches generating a control signal by the group controller 1 to sub-controllers 2A/2B to cause an indication of a selected locked elevator (see the description given in col. 3 lines 66-67 and col. 4 lines 1-17).
Claims 4 and 11, Hikita teaches the indication of a selected locked elevator car is generated by an elevator indicator (Fig. 1, see for example units 1F-1H).
Claims 5 and 12, Hikita teaches at least one characteristic being used to decide to lock a candidate elevator for responding to a service call, said characteristic is a predefined advance indication time related to the time before the elevator control 1 locks the candidate elevator (see for example the description given in col. 5 lines 49-58).
Claims 6 and 13, Hikita teaches dividing the plurality of elevators cars into sub-groups controlled by sub-controllers 2A/2B in a static configuration since the division does not change once the elevator system commence operation.
Claims 7 and 14, Hikita teaches a generation of the indication of the sub-group (shaft) by outputting the indication using display controller 1H and hall lanterns 4A/4B.
Claim 15, Hikita teaches a group controller 1 (computer) outputting command signals to sub-group elevator car controllers 2A/2B, the group controller 1 includes a plurality of computing units 1B-1H as well as a communication interface 1A for automatically controlling operation of a plurality of elevators based on data transmission from a call registerer 3. Computer code is inherently used by group controller 1 to automatically control the flow of passengers using a plurality of elevators cars.
Claim 16, Hikita teaches an elevator system comprising a group of elevators (as shown in figures 2A-2C and a group controller 1 which performs the algorithm recited in claim 8 which is taught by Hikita as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art documents have been listed in the attached PTO-892.
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 2837
