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.
In reference to applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection, applicant’s arguments rely on information described in the specification (passenger is guided to a serving elevator group before an elevator from that group is selected) which is not part of the claimed language. Claim 1 remains a pure data manipulation algorithm that can be performed entirely by a generic computer. Claim 1 only requires the step of “generating an indication” but it does not recite displaying said indication anywhere, or modifying the operation of the elevator system before the algorithm finishes. Simply outputting the results of a mathematical formula (the comparison of forecast times) does not transform an abstract idea into an eligible application. “Dividing”, “receiving”, “selecting”, and “evaluating” are generic data processing steps. Also, simply stating that solving a problem using a software algorithm does not make the algorithm itself non-abstract. The claim does not improve the hardware or mechanical operation of the elevator system. It is not clear if applicant intended to switch the argument from claim 1 to claim 7, since the last sentence goes back to claim 1.
In reference to claim 8, no additional argument has been presented. Therefore, apparatus claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
In reference to claim 9, the preamble of claim 9 is directed to the group controller of the elevator system without specifically including “of claim 8”. Applicant grouped together claims 8 and 9 when describing they include similar limitations as claim 1. Please add “of claim 8” to the sentence of claim 9.
In reference to claim 7, adding “causing an output of the indication by at least one of: an elevator call giving device; a sub-group indicator” at the end of a mathematical algorithm is an insignificant post-solution activity. The main invention is still directed to a calculation and comparison of forecast times (the abstract idea). Just taking the result of the comparison and displaying it on a screen does not transform the algorithm into a patent-eligible method.
In reference to the comments with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection, contrary to applicant’s assessment, Hikita does not only describe multiple cars in a single shaft. Please, check col. 1 lines 56-62 where Hikita describes his invention being directed to a group supervisory control of an elevator system including two cars in each elevator shaft. Therefore, the applied art teaches the invention as currently recited in the claims.
In reference to applicant’s arguments with respect to Hikita not teaching selecting a second car based on second forecast time, a car selected based on forecast time, prediction of risk, weight of each car, or a total comprehension evaluation of a series of parameters (as described for example col. 7 lines 37-67). The claimed language does not exclude a system having multiple parameters for determining the best elevator car with a selected shaft.
There is no arguments against the examiner’s comments with respect to a possible objection of claims 8-14 for being a substantial duplicate of claims 1-7.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mathematical scheduling algorithm. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because steps such as dividing the elevators into sub-groups, receiving a service call, and using forecast times to select an elevator are considered generic or conventional computer routine activities. Additionally, comparing forecast times of multiple elevators in order to select the elevator that can provide a service call in less amount of time is an insignificant post-solution activity, since it is considered a conventional activity in controlling traffic flow in elevator systems. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as a whole they do not provide an inventive concept to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The claims should be amended to recite a specific technical improvement in the operation of the elevator system or recite limitations directed to the generation of control signals for the operation of the different mechanical components that formed the elevator system. Applicant must avoid reciting a computer performing routine activities such as receiving data, evaluating the received information, and selecting something based on the evaluation of data.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hikita (US Patent 6360849).
The preamble of claim 1 is directed to a method for controlling a passenger flow in a building, wherein said method is performed by a group controller (as stated in line 3 of claim 1). Claim 8 includes a preamble directed to a “group controller” performing a series of method steps. Even though the first line in each claim gives the impression they belong to two different statutory categories of invention (process and machine/apparatus), the body of the both claims recite the same series of method steps (same algorithm). Therefore, claims 1-7 and 8-14 will be grouped together and treated as duplicate of each other for the purposes of an art rejection.
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 set time (Fig. 3, S33 as well as col. 4 lines 23-47); evaluating a second candidate (elevator car) to provide the service call withing a set time (Fig. 3, S34-S35); selecting the second candidate if the second elevator car can provide the service is less time than the first candidate (see col. 4 lines 61-67 and col. 5 lines 1-2); and 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).
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.
Claim 17, as stated in col. 1 lines 56-62, Hikita teaches an elevator control system comprising a plurality of elevator shafts, wherein each shaft includes at least 2 elevator cars (see also the description given in col. 5 lines 25-43).
Claim 18, Hikita et al describes in col. 5 lines 25-43 that the selected car can be any available car from a plurality of cars A1/A2; B1/B2; C1/C2; or D1/D2 found in shafts A-D.
Conclusion
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-7 be found allowable in the future, claims 8-14 will be objected to (if they are not amended) under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. 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 described above, 35 USC 102 (a)(1) rejection, the body of claims 1-7 and claims 8-14 include the same algorithm. The only difference between the two sets of claims is the information included in the preamble of said claims.
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 2837
Prosecution Insights