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 is too long and includes 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).
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 1-19 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of data analysis without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations directed to: monitoring one of more parameters and performing a configuration “procedure” that includes “recording” different profiles, and designating an open/close position based on one or more “characteristics” of the recorded profiles. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because recording “energy profiles” and using them to designate positions is essentially a data collection and analysis method that could be performed mentally. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because while the claims mention physical components such as a “processor” and a “memory”, these elements are considered conventional components of a generic computer that run a standard algorithm of recording and comparing data. The energy profile simple uses conventional sensor data to determine s state. It does not amount to an improvement of the computer or elevator system.
Additionally, in reference to claim 7, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of identifying a mathematical segment of data on a graph. The recitation of a “beginning of the first recorded power consumption profile” , “end of the second recorded power consumption profile”, “beginning of the second recorded power consumption profile” , and “end of the end recorded power consumption profile” is considered a mathematical relationship represented visually and identifying a portion of a graph can also be performed in the human mind. Merely selecting a specific segment of data on a graph uses conventional computer functions and does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
In reference to claim 8, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 7. Reciting portion of a mathematical graph is considered an abstract idea.
In reference to claim 5, any reference to “door coupler range” in the power profile is considered an abstract idea. Limitations directed to a graph would not be allowed.
Claims 11 and 12 further recite more steps directed to the abstract idea of claim 1, the new steps are related to recording reference information and associating said reference information to the position of the elevator car door.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 17 includes the rejected apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 18 includes the same operating steps as recited in claim 1.
Claim 34 includes the same rejected method as in claim 18.
To make the apparatus/method patent eligible, the claims must be amended to point out a specific technical improvement rather than just having a computer perform data processing. Additionally, limitations directed to portions of a graph or peaks of a graph are not patent eligible.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Clam 3 depends from claim 1, which has already established that the car door is moved from first end position to the second end position to capture the first power consumption profile and the car is moved from the second end position to the first end position to capture the second power consumption profile, and adds nothing new to the apparatus of claim 1. Claim 19 adds nothing new to the method of operation recited in claim 18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 1-19 and 34 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 an apparatus configured to control operation of a car door of an elevator car, however the claim does not specify how designating a first end position or a second end position as either a closed door position or an open door position would control the operation of the car door. Additionally, it is unclear what applicant means by using one or more “characteristics” of an energy profile to designate a position of the elevator car.
Claim 5 is directed to identifying a door coupler range that exhibits a continuous period of increase power consumption and designating the first end position and second end position as either the closed door position or open door position based on one or more “characteristics” of the door coupler ranges. What is a door coupler range? Is applicant referring to a range of motion or a range of power? What does it mean to designate a door position based on “characteristics” of a door coupler range?
Claim 7 further includes more limitations directed to the door coupler range recited in claim 5, however as pointed out above the limitations directed to a door coupler range are unclear. Is applicant trying to claim portions of the power consumption graph illustrated in figures 3A and 3B? Additionally, the claim is indefinite because it fails to provide a clear standard for determining the scope of the “beginning” and the “end” of the power profile.
Claim 8, is applicant trying to claim portions of a mathematical graph? The language of the claim is vague and more important indefinite.
Claim 15, It is not clear why a new door closed signal is used when the door is already at the closed position.
Claim 16, as described above in the rejection of claim 5, it is unclear what a door coupler range is. Additionally, as pointed out before, any reference to performing a task at the beginning or end of any graph is considered indefinite. What is the beginning or end of a profile? A set time or distance interval most be part of the claim. It is enough to say at the beginning or at the end of a mathematical graph.
Claim 18, this claim is rejected for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 34 includes the rejected method of operation of claim 18.
Claims 5-8 include limitations directed to portions of a mathematical graph. No art rejection can be applied, since it is clear what the invention is. Additionally, as pointed out in the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 5-8, reciting a graph or portions of a graph is not patentable subject matter.
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) 1-4, 9-16, 18-19 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schröder-Brumloop et al .
The pending claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101 and 112(b) as described above. Prior art has been applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 1, 18, and 34, Schröder-Brumloop et al teaches an apparatus/method for controlling operation of an elevator car door via a driving system, the apparatus comprises a memory 42 for storing a computer program code and different preferred parameters or profile maps used to operate the elevator car door; and a microprocessor 40 for executing the program stored in the memory unit, wherein the processor monitors signals related to speed, frequency, direction, and/or voltage; initializes or configures the elevator system by recording a plurality of profiles that are used to control movement and energy applied to a motor 26 which controls movement of the elevator car door from a first end position to a second end position and from the second end position to the first end position, and designates the end positions as either a closed door position or an open door position (see for example the description given in col. 4 lines 57-67).
Schröder-Brumloop et al does not specifically describe the stored profiles as power consumption profiles. However, Schröder-Brumloop et al describes in col. 2 lines 5-33 that different profiles such as speed and torque profiles are stored. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to know that torque is directly proportional to the power. Additionally, Schröder-Brumloop et al describes in col. 4 lines 28-43 that control profiles can easily be modified based on the type of motor and the intended use of the system.
Claims 2 and 19, Schröder-Brumloop et al describes in col. 4 lines 57-67 that the elevator door is operated after the initiation phase.
Claims 3 and , Schröder-Brumloop et al as described above in the rejection of claim 1, teaches controlling motor 26 to move the elevator car door 12 from one end position to the other end position during the initialization phase of the system in order to establish the fully open position and the fully close position of the elevator car door.
Claim 4, Schröder-Brumloop et al describes operating the elevator car door 12 using the movement profiles stored in memory 42 (see for example fig. 4 and corresponding description).
Claims 9-10 and 16, Schröder-Brumloop et al describes parameters such as voltage and current/torque taken into consideration when created different profiles (see for example col. 3 lines 23-34).
Claim 11, Schröder-Brumloop et al describes tracking a position of a transmission system such as the a drive shaft 28 and a belt drive by the use of an encoder 32. The stored profiles take into consideration the reference position of the elevator car door as described in fig. 3 and corresponding description.
Claims 12 and 13, the association of any reference position to either a fully open position of a fully closed position will be performed by the controller 18 during the initialization phase of the elevator system. It is obvious the elevator door 12 will be operated after the initialization phase is completed.
Claim 14, Schröder-Brumloop et al describes a driving belt in col. 3 lines 8-13.
Claim 15, different closed or open control signals are outputted by controller 18 as the elevator car door 12 is operated.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schröder-Brumloop et al (US 5587565) and Karner et al (US Patent 7607517).
Schröder-Brumloop et al teaches an elevator system comprising: a car door 12; a door driving system including a motor 26, a drive shaft 28, and a belt drive 9see col. 3 lines 10-12); and the apparatus recited in claim 1 which has been rejected above. Schröder-Brumloop et al further describes the elevator car door will be moved until a mechanical stop is reached (see col. 4 lines 26-27).
Schröder-Brumloop et al does not specifically describe that once the mechanical stop is reached a coupler is activated, wherein the coupler is a commonly used device for connecting a landing door to an elevator car door when the elevator car arrives at a landing zone.
However, Karner et al teaches a door coupler and locking device use in an elevator system, said coupler is described in fig. 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a coupler to connect the landing door to the elevator car door to ensure the landing door opens and closes in synchronization with the car door for safe and smooth operation of the elevator system.
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 elevator systems that include a series of pre-stored energy profiles.
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