CTNF 18/232,993 CTNF 76040 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-19 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 preamble of the claim is directed to an elevator control device for controlling an elevator, however the body of the claim does not recite how the elevator is being controlled based on the changes made to the maximum allowed weight of the elevator cage. Additionally, it is not clear how a controller determines that a robot is waiting for an elevator instead of just another passenger waiting for the elevator. How does an elevator controller determine the weight of just a robot from anything/anybody waiting for an elevator? In reference to claim 2, how does a controller determine that a robot is waiting on a particular floor? How does the controller set the rated weight to the set maximum weight before anything/anybody gets on the elevator cage? In reference to claim 3, how does a controller determine a robot is waiting on a particular floor? How does a controller determine if a robot is allowed to get on? In reference to claim 4, how does an elevator controller determine that a robot is not allowed to get on the elevator cage? There is no difference between what the controller is doing during the first determination processing and the second determination processing, since the outcome is still the same allowing the robot to get on the elevator. In reference to claim 5, how does the controller determine the robot cannot get on the elevator? What is the difference between a robot waiting or a human waiting on a particular floor, would the elevator stop for a human? In reference to claim 6, how would the controller determine that a person is waiting for an elevator? How can the controller stop a robot, but allow a person to get on the elevator? In reference to claim 7, how does the controller determine a robot is allowed to get on the elevator after a first, a second, or a third determination processing? In reference to claim 8, how can a “lifting” direction of an elevator cage be changed? Does applicant mean the direction of movement is changed? Why would the controller set the maximum weight as the set maximum weight if the set maximum weight is related to a robot getting on the elevator? Why wouldn’t a robot get on the elevator? In reference to claim 9, who receives a boarding permission and what do you take into consideration for granting or denying boarding permission? How is the weight of just the robot and anything on the robot being detected and differentiated over anything/anybody else waiting for an elevator? How is a boarding permission determined based on the weight of the robot? In reference to claim 10, how is the weight of the robot determined? How does a robot receive a boarding permission over a boarding denial? In reference to claim 11, what is the robot configured to receive? How does the a control device determine a robot is waiting at a particular floor? How does the controller set the rated weight to the set maximum weight before anything/anybody gets on the elevator cage? In reference to claim 12, how does a controller determine a robot is waiting on a particular floor? How does a first determination processing determine if a robot is allowed to board the elevator cage? In reference to claim 13, how does an elevator control device determine that a robot is not allowed to board the elevator cage? There is no difference between what the control device is doing during the first determination processing and the second determination processing, since the outcome is still the same allowing the robot to board the elevator. In reference to claim 14, how is the robot configured to receive a boarding permission even though the second determination processing determines the robot is not allowed to board the elevator? The way the claim is written gives the impression the robot gets permission to board and also gets a denial to board. Correction is required In reference to claim 15, how does the second determination processing determine the robot is not allowed to board but the control device stops the elevator for a human? In reference to claim 16, how does a control device determine a robot is allowed to board an elevator during a third determination processing? In reference to claim 17, how does the robot receive a permission to board an elevator but the elevator does not stop where the robot is waiting? In reference to claims 18 and 19, these claims are rejected for the same reasons given in the rejection of claims 1 and 9 above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al (US Publication 2018/0170710) . Claims 1-19 have been rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for being unclear. The claims include limitations which do not specifically point out how any of the recited limitations can be accomplished. Prior art has been applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner. Claims 1, 9, 18, and 19, Martin et al teaches an elevator control device 200 for controlling an elevator car 103, the control device comprises a storage 202 storing elevator car data (see for example paragraph 0038); and a controller 208 (or 322) for controlling the movement of the elevator car. Martin et al further describes a plurality of sensors 326 for detecting different parameters about people or cargo located within an elevator car 303 (fig. 3) and/or the elevator landing 325, wherein the detected information (size, volume, load/weight of passenger and cargo, see paragraph 0052) is sent to control system 322 where it is determined if a potential change in load/weight will exceed a predetermined value. If the control system determines the received weight exceeds the predetermined value, then a maximum weight limit is adjusted before the elevator car reaches the elevator landing. Martin et al does not specifically describe the preferred maximum weight value as listed in claim 1 and does not describe the cargo (non-person) being a robot. However, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to use the weight of a robot, since as described by Martin et al in paragraph 0050 anything that can be loaded on to the elevator car needs to be taken into account to obtain the load/weight of said elevator car in order to prevent bounce of the elevator car. Claim 2, Martin et al describes control system 322 setting the rated weight of the elevator car 303 before the elevator reaches landing 325 (see paragraph 0052). Claims 3-8 and 10-17, Martin et al teaches, fig. 5 and corresponding description, adjusting the maximum allowed weight/load of an elevator car 303 in order to continuously assess (first, second, and third determination processing) by using a plurality of sensors 326 if elevator control system 322 needs to adjust the maximum weight allowed in the elevator car in order to prevent bouncing. Once applicant provides a more detailed method of controlling an elevator system using a change in the allowed maximum weight of an elevator car, the examiner will be able to provide a more detailed rejection . Drawings 06-37 AIA The drawings were received on 8/11/23 . These drawings are approved . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The attached PTO-892 list additional documents that describe elevator systems that include a load/weight measuring device for determining the load of an elevator car during normal operation of the elevator system and adjusts the maximum allowed weight based on the feedback from the weight/load measuring device . 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 Colo-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 Application/Control Number: 18/232,993 Page 2 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/232,993 Page 3 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/232,993 Page 4 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/232,993 Page 5 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/232,993 Page 6 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/232,993 Page 7 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/232,993 Page 8 Art Unit: 2837
Prosecution Insights