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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they do not show an elevator control system or circuit including a torque sensor for measuring a motor torque as recited in the pending claims. The originally filed drawings only support a control unit “determining” a motor torque TSC based on the difference between a “reference speed” and an “actual speed” and the use of a PI controller. 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.
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.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legal phraseology. Additionally, the label “Fig. 1” needs to be removed. It seems the current abstract is an exact copy of claim 1. 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 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 1-17 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 1 is directed to a method for determining at least one position control feedforward torque parameter, wherein the method includes driving at least one test run of an elevator, measuring/determining a motor torque during the test run, and determining at least one parameter value of a list of parameter values related to the position control feedforward torque parameter values. Claim 1 does not clearly point out how any of the listed parameter values would be determined using a position control feedforward torque and a measured/determined motor torque. Applicant must recite the manner in which each of the parameter values will be determined in order to overcome this rejection.
Claims 2 and 10, how is at least one parameter value determined based on a “determined torque” during a test run or a part of a test run?
Claims 3 and 11, how can a “measured” torque be determined based on an average torque determined between certain predefined phases of a test run? A measured torque can only be obtained using a torque sensor.
Claims 4 and 12, measured values can only be obtained using a sensor. Applicant needs to remove “measured” and only recite how the “determined torque” is obtained.
Claims 5 and 13, the abbreviation "e.g." which means “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected because it depends from a rejected claim.
Claim 7, claim 1 which claim 7 depends from has established the parameter values being determined based on a feedforward torque and a measured/determined torque, how can the feedforward torque be determined based on the determined values? This make no sense, correction is required.
Claim 8, the feedforward torque cannot be determined based on the “determined” parameter values since the parameter values are determined based on the feedforward torque as recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 has the same issues as described above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 15, claim 9 which claim 15 depends from has established the parameter values being determined based on a feedforward torque and a measured/determined torque, how can the feedforward torque be determined based on the determined values? This make no sense, correction is required.
Claim 16, the feedforward torque cannot be determined based on the “determined” parameter values since the parameter values are determined based on the feedforward torque as recited in claim 9.
Claim 17 is rejected because it depends from rejected claim 9.
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.
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) 1-5 and 9-13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirabayashi (US Patent 9242833).
The claims have been rejected under 35 USC 112b for being vague and indefinite. The claims in their current form do not recite the specific manner in which any of the recited parameters can be determined. Prior art has been applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner. If the examiner’s interpretation of the recited subject matter is wrong, applicant needs to point out the differences and the claims need to be amended to include a clear description of applicant’s invention.
Claims 1 and 9, Hirabayashi teaches a method for determining at least one position feedforward torque parameter of an elevator system or an elevator control unit 12 that includes a motor 1 and a motor drive circuit comprising a plurality of sensors and at least a power converter 15, wherein elevator control unit comprises a speed control section 14 which includes a torque calculating unit 16 for determining a feedforward torque, wherein the method comprises driving the elevator using a modeled test run of the elevator, determining motor torque the test run (as described in fig. 2), and determine based on a modeled torque instruction value (feedforward torque) and determined motor torque at least one parameter related to balance (see for example the description given in col. 5 lines 5-15 about section 28).
The difference between the teachings of Hirabayashi and claim 1 is that claim 1 recites a position control means instead of a speed control means of Hirabayashi. However, Hirabayashi describes the use of a car position sensor 27 for calculating a car/motor position based speed detector 9. It would have been obvious to one person ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a position control loop using the teachings of Hirabayashi, since it is commonly known to calculate position from speed by integrating the speed with respect to time.
Claims 2 and 10, as stated above, Hirabayashi describes a model torque calculating section 16 for determining motor torque for operating an elevator motor during a modeled test run.
Claims 3 and 11, Hirabayashi describes in figures 3 and 5 a series of torque values taken into consideration when determined a motor total torque.
Claims 4 and 12, Hirabayashi describes for example in figure 2 that a total motor torque is based on an average torque determine during an entire motion profile of the elevator.
Claims 5 and 13, Hirabayashi describes an elevator control unit comprising a model torque calculating unit 16.
Claim 17, Hirabayashi teaches an elevator comprising: an elevator car 4; an elevator motor 1; a drive system for the motor including a power converter 15; and an elevator control unit 12, wherein the control unit operates in the manner recited in the rejection of claim 9 above.
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 form describe other elevator systems comprising a motor torque control system.
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 have not been rejected using prior art because they contain unclear limitations.
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