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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/03/2023 and 09/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “(FIG. 1)” included in a second paragraph. Abstract is generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. 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). Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Regarding claims 12-23, according to p. 7-11 of the specification of the instant application, “means for obtaining an elevator call indication association with a user” is interpreted as mobile application executed by a mobile device of the user or destination operating panel (DOP) in vicinity of elevators, “means for causing provision of first guidance information for the user” is interpreted as guidance information given with user’s mobile device or DOP or separate display, “means for obtaining location data” is interpreted as tracking system using various camera systems or radio frequency based tracking system, and “means for allocating an elevator car” is interpreted as elevator system or elevator controller for allocating an elevator car. 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- 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea (organizing human activity and mental processes) without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) the steps of “ obtaining an elevator call indication associated with a user ”, “ causing provision of first guidance information for the user to proceed to a waiting area ”, “ obtaining location data associated with the user, the location data providing information about the location of the user ” and “ allocating an elevator car in response to the elevator call indication, wherein the allocation takes into account the location of the user ” . However, these limitations constitute human activity and mental processes, which are recognized judicial exceptions. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP 2106.04. For example, one can obtain user elevator call indication by looking at the action of the user, direct the user to a waiting area verbally, obtain location of the user by looking at the user, and allocate ana elevator car by using pen or pencil to assign elevator to the user. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding claim 12, besides similar abstract idea identified in claim 1, the claim further recites additional elements based on claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112f. H owever, those additional elements identified under 35 U.S.C. 112f above are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are recited at a high level of generality and serves as a generic computing device for implementing the abstract idea , which are considered as post-solution activity. The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply “significantly more”. See Enfish , LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improvement to computer architecture); Diehr , 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (transformation); MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. T hus, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter . Regarding claim s 3 and 14 , similar to “causing provision of first guidance information” recited in claim s 1 and 12 , the limitation “causing provision of second guidance information” is considered as abstract idea. Thus, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter . Regarding claims 2 , 4 , 13 and 15 , besides identified abstract idea, the claims further recite additional elements, such as “display”, and “mobile application” for causing provision of first guidance information or second guidance information. H owever, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are recited at a high level of generality and serves as a generic computing device for implementing the abstract idea , which are considered as post-solution activity. The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply “significantly more”. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. T hus, claim s 2, 4, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter . Regarding claims 5 -6 and 16-17 , the steps of determining the waiting area is considered as abstract idea directed to mental processes; thus, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter . Regarding claim s 7 and 18 , the steps of obtaining location data and distancing the user are considered as abstract idea directed to mental processes; thus, the claim s are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter . Regarding claim s 8 and 19 , the steps of changing size and/or location of waiting area dynamically are considered as abstract idea directed to mental processes; thus, the claim s are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter . Regarding claims 9-10 and 20-21 , the steps of obtaining location data and allocating an elevator car are considered as abstract idea directed to mental processes; thus, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter . Regarding claim s 11 and 22 , additional element, such as “external monitoring system”, is no more than using well-known generic hardware as a tool to collect data . The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply “significantly more”. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. T hus, claim s 11 are 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter . Regarding claim 23, the claim further recites “a plurality of elevator cars”; however, they are recited at a high level of generality for implementing the abstract idea. The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply “significantly more”. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. T hus, claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter . Regarding claim 24, the claim further recites a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium executed by at least one processing unit as additional element. H owever, the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are recited at a high level of generality and serves as a generic computing device for implementing the abstract idea . The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply “significantly more”. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. T hus, claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter . 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 -24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Osawa et al. (US 2019/0144238 A1) . Regarding claims 1 and 12, Osawa discloses a method (Abstract & [0127]) and an apparatus (e.g. Abstract) comprising: means for obtaining an elevator call indication associated with a user (e.g. [0060, 0063]: request an elevator car by elevator terminal or user mobile terminal) ; means for causing provision of first guidance information for the user to proceed to a waiting area (e.g. Figs. 32-33 & [0032, 0033]: display suggested waiting position for user) ; means for obtaining location data associated with the user, the location data providing information about the location of the user (e.g. [0166, 0202]: using camera or rfid tag or smartphone application to monitor waiting position of passenger in the boarding area) ; and means for allocating an elevator car (e.g. Fig. 1: 107 & [0051, 0054]) in response to the elevator call indication, wherein the allocation takes into account the location of the user (e.g. [0166]) . Regarding claims 2 and 13, Osawa discloses the means for causing provision of first guidance information to the user are configured to cause provision of the first guidance information with at least one of a display associated with the location of the user, a voice announcement and with a mobile application used by the user (e.g. Figs. 32-33 & [0032, 0033]: display suggested waiting position for user) . Regarding claims 3 and 14, Osawa discloses means (e.g. Fig. 2: 111) for causing provision of second guidance information associated with the allocated elevator car for the user (e.g. [0062]). Regarding claims 4 and 15, Osawa discloses the means for causing provision of second guidance information associated with the allocated elevator car to the user are configured to cause provision of the second guidance information with at least one of a display associated with the location of the user, a voice announcement and with a mobile application used by the user (e.g. Fig. 2: 111 & [0062]) . Regarding claims 5 and 16, Osawa discloses means for determining for the user a specific waiting location in the waiting area (e.g. Figs. 32-33 & [0032, 0033]: display suggested waiting position for user). Regarding claims 6 and 17, Osawa discloses means for determining for the user a specific waiting location in the waiting area are configured to determine the waiting location by distancing the user from at least one other user in the waiting area (e.g. Fig. 33: space in between designated waiting location) . Regarding claims 7 and 18, Osawa discloses means for obtaining location data associated with at least one other user in the waiting area before determining for the user a waiting location in the waiting area (e.g. [0180, 0181]: depends on other users waiting position) ; and means for distancing the user from the at least one other user based on the location data associated with the at least one other user (e.g. [0180, 0181]: prevent congestion and/or crowding the boarding area). Regarding claims 8 and 19, Osawa discloses means for changing the size and/or location of the waiting area dynamically (e.g. Fig. 31 & [0180]: using unused waiting area of car A for users of car D, for example) . Regarding claims 9 and 20, Osawa discloses means for obtaining location data associated with at least one other user, the location data providing information about the location of the at least one other user; and user (e.g. [0166, 0202]: using camera or rfid tag or smartphone application to monitor waiting position of passenger in the boarding area) , wherein the means for allocating an elevator car in response to the elevator call indication are configured to allocate the elevator car by taking into account the location of the at least one other user in the waiting area (e.g. [0180, 0181]: car allocation based on whether the boarding area is crowded with waiting passenger) . Regarding claims 10 and 21, Osawa discloses the means for allocating an elevator car in response to the elevator call indication are configured to allocate the elevator car by taking into account at least one of existing allocated elevator calls and elevator call indications associated with other users (e.g. [0179]) . Regarding claims 11 and 22, Osawa discloses the location data is obtained from an external monitoring system (e.g. [0166, 0202]: using camera or rfid tag or smartphone application to monitor waiting position of passenger in the boarding area) . Regarding claim 23, Osawa discloses an elevator system comprising: a plurality of elevator cars (e.g. Fig. 30) ; and the apparatus of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12). Regarding claim 24, Osawa discloses a computer program (e.g. [0056]) embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising program code, which when executed by at least one processing unit, causes an apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3909 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846