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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. With regard to claim 1, the claim recites the abstract idea of comparing a measured indicator value to a reference value. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited determining, transmitting, receiving and measuring do not do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to data acquisition/gathering steps required for the comparison and do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, there is no significant linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the displaying of the comparison value in a user interface is well-understood, routine and conventional.
Dependent claims 2-20 do not recite elements that rescue the claimed invention from abstraction, but merely specify the indictor value, the event, the circuitry/program code, information displayed or add the triggering of an event.
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 2-5, 11-18 and 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “the requesting component” and "the serving component" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that ‘a requesting component’ and ‘a serving component’ are meant; however, the specification does not define or provide context for ‘a serving component’ or ‘a requesting component’. Therefore, further examination of the claim is precluded.
Claims 3, 5 recite the limitations "the serving component" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that ‘a serving component’ is meant; however, the specification does not define or provide context for ‘a serving component’. Therefore, further examination of the claims is precluded.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that ‘a component’ is meant; however, the specification does not define or provide context for ‘a component’. Therefore, further examination of the claim is precluded.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the resource load”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that ‘a resource load’ is meant.
Claims 11-18 and 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies. Examination of these dependent claims is precluded for the reasons stated above.
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, 6-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2015181857 (‘857 hereafter. Portions of the attached machine translation are cited).
Claim 1: ‘857 discloses (page 5 of attached machine translation) a method for measuring the state of an elevator and escalator arrangement comprising: determining a reference value for an indicator value; transmitting a message (via determination unit 3) to a recipient component (elevator control apparatus 5); receiving a response (from elevator control apparatus 5) to the transmitted message; measuring the indicator value (inspection result) based on the received response; comparing the measured indicator value with the reference value, wherein the comparison result is indicative of the state of a component in the elevator and escalator arrangement; and displaying the comparison result in a user interface (the inspection result determination unit 3 issues an elevator control instruction to operate the inspection item corresponding to the inspection location. It outputs to the apparatus 5 and acquires the measured value of an inspection location from the elevator control apparatus 5 (S7). Then, it is determined whether or not the acquired measurement value is within the range of the reference value stored in advance in the inspection state storage unit 4 (S8). If the measured value is within the range of the reference value, the inspection result is determined to be good, and the inspection result that the inspection result is good is displayed on the hall display device 10 via the elevator control device 5 (S9). Further, the inspection result determination unit 3 stores the inspection result in the inspection state storage unit 4. If the measured value is not within the range of the reference value, it is determined that the inspection result is NO, and the inspection result that the inspection result is NO is displayed on the hall display device 10 via the elevator control device 5 (S9))
Claim 6: Being ‘within or not within the range’ is a relative deviation from the reference value (note: the BRI of relative deviation does not require a numerical value for the deviation).
Claim 7: Page 6 discloses comparing the comparing result with a threshold and as a response to exceeding the threshold, triggering an event (the result of the inspection work is judged based on the measured value and the reference value of the inspection item at the inspection location, whether or not the inspection work has been performed accurately so that the operation of the equipment inspected by the maintenance worker is within the reference value can be determined.).
Claim 8: Page 6 discloses that the event is an alert (It may be displayed, indicated by a warning sound).
Claims 9 and 10: Pages 2 and 3 disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer program product comprising computer program code, which is configured to cause performing a method according to any of claims18claim1, when executed by a computing device, and a system comprising a circuitry for executing computer programs, wherein the circuitry is configured to perform a method according to claim 1 (The inspection result confirmation apparatus 1 is equipped with an arithmetic device such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit), and the inspection work determination unit 2 and the inspection result determination unit 3 are activated as programs on the arithmetic device. In addition, as the inspection state storage unit 4 of the inspection result confirmation apparatus 1, a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory), a flash memory, a hard disk, or the like is mounted).
Claim 19: Ascertaining whether the result is within a range is comparing the result with a threshold. Page 6 discloses that the event is an alert (It may be displayed, indicated by a warning sound).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/10053794 discloses [0028] a controller configured to determine one or more values representing a quality of service of the elevator system. The quality of service may refer to at least one value indicating how efficiently the elevator system may serve a passenger or passengers. The value for the quality of service may e.g. represented by means of a determined value representing at least one waiting time of at least one passenger i.e. how long at least one passenger needs to wait (delay) until he/she gets served by the elevator system after giving a service request, such as an elevator call, on a need of service. The determined value, or values, may be compared to a reference value, or reference values, and in accordance with the comparison a detection result may be set to express an efficiency of the elevator system.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M IACOLETTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5789. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am -5 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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571 272 5560. 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.
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877