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. Claim s 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim s recite the monitoring of a suspension member determining that the suspension member should be removed from service . These limitations constitute an abstract idea since they could be done by a human mind . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim s do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . The recited elements of the elevator and sensors etc . are routine well-understood systems that do not amount to more tha n the judicial exception of monitoring and determining that the suspension member should be removed from service. 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. Claim s 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tyni et al (US 2015/0129367) . Claim 1 : Tyni et al teach a method of monitoring a suspension member that supports an elevator car and experiences bend cycles as the suspension member facilitates movement of the elevator car between a plurality of door zones, the method comprising: determining a number of times the elevator car passes or stops at each of the plurality of door zones ([00 2 3] obtaining a total number N of car visits at a predetermined landing in the path of the elevator car , [0043] The method/arrangement can be implemented for one or more landings. Should the method be implemented for all the landings, it can be assumed that all the rope sections that can go through considerable bending are monitored ) ; determining a number of bend cycles experienced by at least one section of the suspension member based on the number of times the elevator car passes or stops at each of the plurality of door zones ([0023] the total number N is as such an approximate number of actual bending-cycles the rope section has undergone . See also [0035] ) ; and determining a condition of the suspension member based on a relationship between a determined number of bend cycles and at least one predetermined criterion ([0040] the arrangement, preferably said processing unit 11 thereof, is further arranged to perform one or more predetermined action if said total number N or the multifold of the total number N meets the first predetermined limit value, said one or more action including one or more of indicating a weakened rope condition, indicating a need for maintenance or replacement of elevator rope(s) ) . Claim 2 : In the case of the system comprising multiple rope wheels, as described in [0023], Tyni et al teach determining a respective number of bend cycles for each of a plurality of sections (corresponding to each wheel) of the suspension member; and the determined number of bend cycles for each of the sections is independent of other sections at other door zones (the sections corresponding to the respective wheels would be different for different landings) . Claim 3 : [ 0040] discloses that the at least one predetermined criteria comprises a predetermined number of bend cycles and including: determining a condition of the suspension member based on the counted number of bend cycles for each section of the suspension member, and determining to remove the suspension member from service when one of the counted number of bend cycles for the associated door zone exceeds the predetermined number of bend cycles. Claims 4 , 11 , 18 : [ 0038] and Fig. 1 disclose providing the elevator car with a first sensor (12a) and each door zone with a second sensor (12b) , wherein the first and second sensors cooperate with each other to determine when the elevator car is passing through each door zone such that an associated counter for that door zone is increased by one. Claim 6 : [ 0022] and Fig. 1 disclose that the suspension member comprises a belt (1) that connects the elevator car (2) to a counterweight (4) . Claim s 7 , 15 : [ 0022] and Fig. 1 disclose moving the belt around one or more sheaves (3) as the elevator car moves between the door zones, and wherein one bend cycle for the at least one section occurs as the at least one section moves around one of the sheaves. Claim 8 : Tyni et al teach (see rejections of claims 1 -3 , 6, 7) a n elevator system, comprising: an elevator car; a suspension member that supports the elevator car and experiences bend cycles as the suspension member facilitates movement of the elevator car between a plurality of door zones; and a counter located at each door zone, wherein each counter is configured to provide an indication of a number of times the elevator car is situated at or passes through an associated door zone for that counter, wherein the indication of each counter corresponds to a number of bend cycles experienced by at least one section of the suspension member [0038] . Claim s 9 , 16 : Tyni et al disclose that each counter indication increases by one as the elevator car passes through the associated door zone for that counter; the increased counter indication corresponds to a number of bends that some sections of the suspension member experiences ; and each section has a counted number of bend cycles that is independent of other sections (see rejection of claim 3) . Claim s 10 , 17 : [ 0038] discloses at least one processor (11) configured to identify a predetermined number of bend cycles, and configured to predetermine a criteria including: determine a condition of the suspension member based on the counted number of bend cycles for at least one section of the suspension member, and determine to remove the suspension member from service when at least one of the counted number of bend cycles exceeds the predetermined number of bend cycles [0040] . Claims 13 and 20 : A total counter number corresponding to a maximum of all of the counter indications would differ from a total number of bend cycles for at least some sections of the suspension member (sections of the rope that are close to the car would have zero bend cycles). Claim 14 : Tyni et al disclose a n elevator system, comprising: an elevator car; a suspension member that supports the elevator car and experiences bend cycles as the suspension member facilitates movement of the elevator car between a plurality of door zones, the suspension member comprising a belt that connects the elevator car to a counterweight; and a counter located at each door zone, wherein each counter is configured to provide an indication of a number of times the elevator car is situated at or passes through an associated door zone for that counter, wherein the indication of each counter corresponds to a number of bend cycles experienced by at least one section of the suspension member (see rejections of claim 1-10 above) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 5, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyni et al (US 2015/0129367) in view of Official Notice. Claims 5, 12, 19 : Tyni et al anticipate the limitations of claims 4, 11 and 18, but do not specify that one of the first and second sensors comprises a transmitting device and the other of the first and second sensors comprises a receiving device. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that level sensors such as that disclosed by Tyni et al routinely comprise transmitting and corresponding receiving devices, and as such it would have been an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a well-known configuration for such a counter/sensor. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHELLE M IACOLETTI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5789 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Allana Bidder can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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