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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains a reference to Fig. 4. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3 includes two separate graphs; the graphs need to be labeled “Fig. 3A” and “Fig. 3B”. Additionally, the “Description of the Drawings” section needs to amended to include a description for each of the two illustrations. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 and 14 recite(s) an apparatus/method for elevator call allocation in an elevator group of an elevator system, wherein the apparatus/method recites a mathematical algorithm and mental processes performed by a computer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited operating steps of accessing previously stored data and determining/transforming/evaluating a series of highly broad terms such as “call allocation policy” and “optimal candidate elevator call allocation policy” are conventional or routine functions performed by a generic computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor and memory do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or an improvement in the operation of the elevator system. The recited limitations are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-27 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are further directed to additional elements of the original abstract idea of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Additionally, claim 27 is directed to a “computer program product”. Applicant needs to correct the claim, the claim needs to be directed to “a computer-readable medium”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The detailed description of the invention only repeats the same vague information provided in the claims. Applicant needs to point out where one could find a clear description of how the recited “apparatus”/method of operation is able to perform the recited limitations directed to the manipulation of previously stored data in order to allocate an elevator call to an elevator car in the elevator group.
Claims 1-27 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.
The claims in their current form use terms which are considered highly vague and indefinite. Each of the independent claims need to recite complete limitations. Applicant should move some limitations recited in the dependent claims into the independent claims in order to have a complete claim.
Claim 1, what are “allocation policies”, “optimization objectives”, and/or “optimal candidate elevator allocation policy”?
Claims 2 and 15, what are key performance indicators? The subject matter of claim 3 should be included in claim 2 to overcome this rejection. The limitations of claim 16 should be included in claim 15.
Claims 10 and 23, passenger arrival scenarios and passenger arrival process need to be specified
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) 1-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikita (US Patent 6315082).
Claims 1-27 have been rejected under 35 USC 101, 112a, and 112b. Prior art is being applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner. If applicant believes the examiner’s interpretation is not the correct one, applicant needs to amend the claims so that the claims can provide a clear description of applicant’s invention.
Claim 1, 14, and 27, Hikita et al teaches an apparatus/method for elevator call allocation in an elevator system comprising: a system 1 that includes communication units 1A for communicating with elevator control units 2; means 1B for storing a plurality of control commands; a strategy determining section 1D for outputting a set of rules (policies); an operation control unit 1H for overall control of the system; and an statistical processing section 1FD for obtaining statistical values such as average waiting time, wherein the group supervisory control system 1 selects an elevator car from a group of elevators based on processing the desired strategy.
Hikita does not describe the mathematical concept of scalarization of finite-dimensional vectors. However, the preferred statistical method for transforming and determining operating data is considered a design choice, since it would depend on the intended use of elevator evaluation system.
Claims 2-3, 15-16, 8, and 21, Hikita describes the use of key performance indicators such as waiting time, see for example col. 5 lines 56-65.
Claims 4-5 and 17-18, the preferred mathematical concept for evaluating allocation policies (rules) is considered a design choice, no patentable weight has been given.
Claims 6-7 and 19-20, since no meaning for optimization object and scaling weight have been provided in the claims, no prior art can be provided.
Claims 9 and 22, Hikita describes allocating elevator calls based on specific floors, the order in which the calls arrive, or change of elevators associated to a floor, see for example fig. 4 and corresponding description.
Claims 10 and 23, Hikita describes in fig. 3 the rule set (call allocation polices) and the determination and evaluation of each rule in the set.
Claims 11 and 24, Hikita describes statistical evaluation unit 1FD for evaluating traffic data from the elevator.
Claims 12 and 25, Hikita et al describes taken in consideration waiting time in the time control unit 1FE.
Claims 13 and 26, the claimed language in vague and unclear.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents cited in the attached PTO-892 describe different apparatuses directed to an elevator system having a plurality of elevators, wherein elevator calls are allocated to specific elevator cars based on a series of guidelines.
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 2846
Prosecution Insights