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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to the changes made to claim 13:
The amendment did not clarify the issues presented in the Non-Final Office Action dated 5/13/26; it added more challenges under 112(b) which will be described in the new 35 USC 112 (b) rejection below.
Applicant deleted almost the entire preamble. The boundaries of the invention cannot be determined because the introductory clause is completely crossed out.
There is no proper antecedent basis for the use of “said elevator” and “the elevator controller” in the claim.
The claim has been written as a hybrid claim, since it mixes two statutory categories (method and apparatus). The amendment is improper and because claim 13 is attempting to import an entire physical system into an independent method claim. The claim should be rewritten to recite the steps needed to monitor the operation of an elevator system.
In reference to the rejection under 35 USC 101, data gathering (passenger movement) and diagnostic methods are patent-ineligible abstract ideas. The new amendment does not fix the claim; the claim continues to invoke the use of a conventional computer to execute the abstract idea. The claim should include “how” software or hardware accomplishes the recited algorithm.
Claims 16-20 continue to refer to the “monitoring system” of 2-4 and 7, these claims do not reflect the changes made to the preamble of claim 1.
The claims themselves must define the boundaries of the invention. While the specification serves as a dictionary to interpret the terms used in the claims, it cannot be used to read missing information into the claims to save them from an indefinite rejection.
In reference to claim 1, the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112 (a)/(b) are withdrawn.
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 1-11 and 13-20 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.
In reference to claim 1, the claim does not specify how the monitoring system establishes that there is a failure in an elevator on the basis of passenger movement. The lack of movement of a passenger or group of passengers can be due to various reasons; it is not tied to specifically the working conditions of an elevator. The novel method for determining elevator failure using passenger tracking data must be part of the claim to present clear boundaries.
In reference to claim 2, how does the elevator analysis portion of the monitoring system detect a failure based on the amount of passengers observed entering/exiting the elevator at a specific landing?
In reference to claim 3, the claim does not recite how the detecting is performed based on the recited parameters.
In reference to claim 4, the claim is rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
In reference to claim 5, the claim does not recite how the elevator status analysis portion detect a failure in the operation of the elevator based on passenger tracking. The claim only says it will happen without specifying “how”.
In reference to claim 6, the same issue is found here. No specific algorithm for determining failure is provided.
In reference to claims 7-11, the claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
In reference to claim 13, please refer back to the section “Response to Arguments” above to see the reasons why claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Additionally, claim 13 does not provide how any of the reciting “method steps” can be accomplished. How is “the failure” determined based on passenger movement?
In reference to claim 14, how does the elevator analysis portion of the monitoring system detect a failure based on the amount of passengers observed entering/exiting the elevator at a specific landing?
In reference to claims 16-20, the preamble should be amended to reflect the changes made to claim 1.
In reference to claim 16, how are the number of passengers determined? It seems this information is already part of claim 1.
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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of analyzing human movement data to detect a failure in the operation of an elevator system without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) tracking passenger movement, analyzing said movement, and inferring elevator failure based on said analysis. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it only uses generic computing components to analyze data without any detailed or specific algorithm, or specific tracking sensors, or improvement to the operation of an elevator, or any concrete technical mechanism. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited limitations are considered purely functional. The “method” only uses conventional techniques without reciting specific models or special hardware to accomplish the recited limitations. The claims only use a conventional computer for performing data processing. The first step of the “method” does not add anything to the “method”, since it only states that an elevator system will be operated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al (US Patent 8020672).
As stated above, the claims in their current form do not recite specific components or algorithms for performing the recited limitations. The examiner will provide an art rejection based on her interpretation of the claimed limitations.
Claim 13, Lin et al teaches a method for controlling an elevator system comprising: operating an elevator system; determining passenger movement on one or more landings served by elevator system 10A based on location indication received from a positioning system including at least camera 12; detecting a failure in the operation of the elevator system (when the elevator car 18 does not open its doors 20 after arriving at a specific landing or when the elevator car doors do not close even after passengers are detected to be inside the car, see the description given for example in col. 10 lines 37-50) based on the passenger movement determined during a monitoring period from the moment the passenger is detected within the field of view of camera 12, R1, and the area around the elevator doors R2 or inside the elevator car 18 detected by a secondary camera 32; and issuing a notification to security system 30in response to detecting a failure in the operation of elevator car 18 (using means 24).
Claim 14, Lin et al also describes an elevator status analysis portion 24 for detecting a failure based on the passenger tracking data (elevator car doors 20 not opening at a requested landing or not closing after passengers have entered the elevator car 18, after cameras 12/32 have tracked one or more unauthorized passengers within the tracking areas R1/R2 or inside the elevator car) as described in the algorithm shown in fig. 4.
In reference to claim 15, Lin et al describes processors and control algorithms for the automatic control of the elevator systems.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
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 2837
