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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 and 11 are objected to because the following elements lack proper antecedent basis in the claim(s):
Claims 1 and 11 lines 7 and 6-7, respectively: “the operational data”
Claims 2 and 11 lines 15 and 9, respectively: “the elevator management service center”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 12 include the limitation “wherein the one or more remove processors includes”. This limitation should be changed to state “wherein the one or more remote processors includes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 11 include the limitation “the local processor, or the remote processor, analyzing the operational log”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the local processor” and “the remote processor” as the claims previously describe one or more local processors and one or more remote processors. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the one or more local processors and one or more remote processors, or further limit the one or more local processors and one or more remote processors to a single local processor and a single remote processor. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “the one or more local processors, or the one or more remote processors, analyzing the operational log”.
Claims 9 and 19 include the limitation “the additional data is utilized to confirm”. However there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the additional data”. It is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the additional information, or introduce a new element into the claims. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “the additional information is utilized to confirm”.
Claim 19 is directed to “[t]he system of claim 18, wherein”. However claim 18 is directed to a method. It is unclear whether applicants intend claim 19 to depend from the method of claim 18, or the system of claims 1-10. For examining purposes, this claim is interpreted as being directed to “[t]he method of claim 18, wherein”.
Claims 2-8, 10, 12-18 and 20 depend from claims 1 or 11 and therefore inherit all claimed limitations. These claims do not correct the deficiencies of claims 1 or 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wos et al. (US 2020/0078111 A1).
Claims 1 and 11: Wos et al. discloses a system and a method for determining when a mechanic of an elevator car is within a building comprising: an elevator car (103) shown in FIG. 1 to be operationally located in a hoistway (117) of a building. FIG. 2 shows one or more local processors (232) operationally coupled to the elevator car and configured to: record sensed operational parameters (operating conditions) of the elevator car and populate, in chronological order using time stamps, an operational log of the operational parameters with operational data (page 3 paragraph [0045]). The sensors include first sensor (202) for reading operational parameters corresponding to a position of the elevator car along the hoistway (page 3 paragraph [0038]). The operational parameters sensed by the sensors would be sensed at a predetermined sample rate and therefore would have an associated time stamp based on the sample rate, as is recognized in the art. One or more remote processors are configured to communicate with the one or more local processors, the operational log is transmitted/received (page 4 paragraph [0049]), and remote operation of the elevator car is executed using a remotely located controller at an elevator management service center (page 2 paragraph [0035]) unless an elevator mechanic is within the building, wherein an alert (indication) is issued upon user input (connection of a mechanic tool to the sensor interface 220) received from a networked computing device indicating that the elevator mechanic is within the building responsive to receipt and analysis of the operational log (page 3 paragraph [0046]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wos et al. (US 2020/0078111 A1).
Claims 2 and 12: Wos et al. discloses a system and a method where one or more local processors are operationally coupled to the elevator car and are configured to record operational parameters of the elevator car based on a sample rate and transmit operational data indicative of the operational parameters, an operational log of the operational parameters with the operational data is populated in chronological order, one or more remote processors communicate with the one or more local processors to receive the operational log, and an elevator management service center is configured to communicate with the remote processor to receive the operational log, and execute remote operation of the elevator car unless the elevator mechanic is within the building, as stated above. The operational data is transmitted over a first network to memory (234) using communication module (236) and a gateway is included to communicate with the local processor over the first network in order to receive the operational data and populate the operational log (page 3 paragraphs [0043], [0045]), as is recognized in the art. The elevator management service center communicates with the remote processor via a cloud over a different network (page 2, paragraph [0035], page 3 paragraph [0044]). This reference fails to disclose the one or more remote processors to communicate with the one or more local processors over a second network.
However Wos et al. teaches the use of different networks for communication between devices (page 3 paragraph [0044]).
Given the teachings of Wos et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and a method disclosed in Wos et al. with providing the one or more remote processors to communicate with the one or more local processors over a second network. Doing so would allow personnel to access different devices and processes within the system as taught in Wos et al. (page 3 paragraph [0044]) allowing maintenance personnel to determine an exact state of the elevator system due to various events (page 1 paragraph [0002]) without having to be in the building.
Claims 3 and 13: Wos et al. discloses a system and a method as stated above, but fails to disclose the local processor to be an internet of things (IoT) edge computing device and the first network to be a local area network; the remote processor to be a cloud computing service and the second network to be a cellular network; and the sampling rate to be less than a minute.
However Wos et al. teaches the use of different networks for communication between devices including different wireless and wired communications and cloud computing service (page 3 paragraph [0044]).
Given the teachings of Wos et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and a method disclosed in Wos et al. with providing the local processor to be an internet of things (IoT) edge computing device and the first network to be a local area network; the remote processor to be a cloud computing service and the second network to be a cellular network; and the sampling rate to be less than a minute. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. It has further been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would allow personnel to access different devices and processes within the system as taught in Wos et al. (page 3 paragraph [0044]) allowing maintenance personnel to determine an exact state of the elevator system due to various events (page 1 paragraph [0002]) without having to be in the building.
Claims 4 and 14: Wos et al. discloses a system and a method as stated above, where the operational data includes operational mode data representing an operational mode of the elevator car at a time of data sampling at the sample rate, and the operational log includes an operational mode table that chronologically lists the operational mode of the elevator car that is extracted from the operational mode data (page 3 paragraph [0045]).
Claims 5-8, 10, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wos et al. (US 2020/0078111 A1) in view of Bauer et al. (US 2022/0204316 A1).
Claims 5 and 15: Wos et al. discloses a system and a method as stated above, where the local processor or the remote processor determines that the elevator mechanic is within the building when the operational mode table has one or more entries indicating that the operational mode has changed (elevator car intentionally parked between landings) (pages 1-2 paragraph [0109]). This reference fails to disclose the determination that the elevator mechanic is within the building to be when the operational mode has changed within a predetermined period of time.
However Bauer et al. teaches a system and method, where it can be verified that maintenance steps have been performed, including presence of an elevator mechanic, for predefined time intervals (pages 1-2 paragraph [0017]).
Given the teachings of Bauer et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method disclosed in Wos et al. with providing the determination that the elevator mechanic is within the building to be when the operational mode has changed within a predetermined period of time. Doing so would allow “checks [to] whether the temporal sequence of the maintenance steps is realistically possible [and] further hinders deception during the performance of the maintenance” as taught in Bauer et al. (page 2 paragraph [0017]).
Claims 6 and 16: Wos et al. modified by Bauer et al. discloses a system and a method as stated above, where the operational data is shown in Wos et al. to include event data representing a state of the elevator car at the time of data sampling at the sample rate, and the operational log chronologically lists the state of the elevator car that is extracted from the event data (page 3 paragraph [0045]). The event data includes a state of a floor location (page 3 paragraph [0038]). The operational log then would include an event buffer table that is configured to chronologically list the state of the elevator car according to floors that the elevator car has recently passed.
Claims 7 and 17: Wos et al. modified by Bauer et al. discloses a system and a method as stated above, where the local processor or the remote processor determines that the elevator mechanic is within the building from a sequence of entries of the event data corresponding to floors that the elevator car has passed before being parked between landings as shown in Wos et al. (page 1 paragraph [0008]).
Claims 8 and 18: Wos et al. modified by Bauer et al. discloses a system and a method as stated above, where each entry in the event buffer table is configured for being updated to provide additional information corresponding to a current position of the elevator car, and the local processor or the remote processor is configured to analyze to determine if the elevator mechanic is within the building based at least in part to whether the elevator car is parked between landings as shown in Wos et al. (page 1 paragraph [0008]).
Claims 10 and 20: Wos et al. discloses a system and a method where as stated above, where the gateway is capable of transmitting an electronic copy of the operational log to the elevator management service center (page 3 paragraphs [0043]-[0044]). This reference fails to disclose the operational log to be manually analyzed to confirm or determine that the elevator mechanic is within the building.
However Bauer et al. teaches a system and method, where an electronic copy of an operational log is sent to a remote system (33) (page 5 paragraph [0063]), and can be analyzed to confirm a plausibility of an entire maintenance process, including presence of an elevator mechanic (pages 1-2 paragraph [0017]).
Given the teachings of Bauer et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method disclosed in Wos et al. with providing the operational log to be able to be manually analyzed to confirm that the elevator mechanic is within the building. Doing so would allow “checks [to] whether the temporal sequence of the maintenance steps is realistically possible [and] further hinders deception during the performance of the maintenance” as taught in Bauer et al. (page 2 paragraph [0017]).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wos et al. (US 2020/0078111 A1) modified by Bauer et al. (US 2022/0204316 A1) as applied to claims above, further in view of Villa (US 2024/0010464 A1).
Claims 9 and 19: Wos et al. modified by Bauer et al. discloses a system and a method as stated above, where the additional information is utilized to confirm that the mechanic was on site via badge detection (page 3 paragraph [0046]). These references fail to disclose the additional information to be utilized to verify a completion to predetermined services.
However Villa teaches a system and method, where information (identification of technician in the elevator car) is utilized to verify a completion to predetermined services (maintenance) (page 8 paragraph [0158]).
Given the teachings of Villa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method disclosed in Wos et al. as modified by Bauer et al. with providing the additional information to be utilized to verify a completion to predetermined services. Doing so would ensure that “no person is within a danger zone, to which a person might have had access during maintenance mode” as taught in Villa (page 2 paragraph [0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 February 7, 2026