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 .
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 10-13 and 18-21 under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn based on the limitation added to independent claims 10 and 18, wherein said new limitation requires the operating mode to be set according to a desired elevator stop.
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) 10 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaubois (US Publication 2019/0169000), of record and Freeman et al (US Publication 2016/0167920).
Claims 10 and 18, Beaubois teaches an elevator system/method of operation comprising: an elevator controller 115; a hall call panel 229 in communication with the elevator controller for requesting an elevator in a desired direction; an elevator car 403 moving up/down within an elevator shaft 117, wherein when the elevator car reaches a shaft landing 425, one or more elevator car doors 433a/433b and one or more shaft/landing doors435a/435b may open allowing a passenger to enter or exit the elevator car. The shaft landing 425 has a first side 425a and a second side 425b; the different sides may be landings of the same or different sections of a building. When the elevator car 403 is located at a landing 425, a first elevator car door 433a is positioned adjacent to a first landing door 435a at the first side 425a of landing 425, and when opened a first form a first entrance 431a. Additionally, if a second elevator door 433b is positioned adjacent to a second landing door 435b at the second side 425b of landing 425, when opened form a second entrance 431b. In this manner the elevator system can separate access to the first and the second sides 425a/425b of the landing 425, wherein for example the second side could be accessed only by authorized individuals using a keycard or other authorization means.
Although, Beaubois teaches an elevator system that can provide access to multiple floors, wherein authorized access to some floors is allowed using one set of doors and public access to another set of floors is arranged using a second set of doors, Beaubois does not specifically describe different “operating modes” when the elevator car is moved to the different sets of floors. Additionally, Beaubois does not describe the “operating mode” is set based on a stop selected in an elevator call.
However, Freeman et al a system/method for controlling elevator cars comprising: a controller 140 for operating/assigning elevators cars 120 of elevator system 10 to one of either general service mode or express priority service (EPS) mode; and a destination display 410 including a display touchscreen 420 displaying a plurality of input options, wherein the destination display is provided (for example) in a lobby of a building and is able to communicate with controller 140. Once a desired floor destination is made by a user on the destination display 140, then a second screen may be displayed if an EPS floor is selected by the user. EPS floors require a user to either enter a security code or present an identification card/tag that can be read/sensed by a reader. Once the selection is made by the user and the controller receives information about the user presenting the necessary authentication to access a restricted floor, then controller 140 operates the elevator car in a “restricted operating mode” since the car would only access the selected restricted floor. If the user select a general call floor to access a public area, then the controller 140 operates the elevator car in a “public access” mode so that the elevator car can only access public area floors, see for example the description given in paragraphs 0033-0036.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the elevator control scheme of Freeman et al in the elevator system of Beaubois, since Beaubois already has the desired infrastructure of an elevator car having multiple landing sides that can provide service to different types of floors (restricted and non-restricted) and Freeman’s scheme provides an elevator system with a secure expediated service to desired floors while maintaining traffic flow with the remaining public access floors at optimum efficiency.
Claims 14 and 16-17, Beaubois/Freeman et al combination teach an elevator system 10 having a plurality of elevator cars 20, wherein the plurality of cars are arranged next to each other in a building as shown for example in fig.1 of Freeman et al. Beaubois clearly describes the structural components of an elevator system comprising a plurality of doors. In reference to claims 16-17, Beaubois describes the elevator cars having different structure, one or multiple doors. Additionally, having one or more elevator car doors is considered a design choice.
Claim 15, Freeman et al teaches controller 140 for controlling the plurality of elevators.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaubois (US Publication 2019/0169000) and Freeman et al (US Publication 2016/0167920) as applied to claims 10 and 14-18 above, and further in view of Finschi (US Patent 2014/0097046), of record.
Claims 11 and 19, Although, using a monitoring device such as a camera to detect if a passenger is still in an elevator would be obvious based on the secure system provided by Beaubois/Freeman et al, they do not describe an additional monitoring device for indicating to the elevator controller that a passenger is still in the elevator car.
However, Finschi teaches an elevator system with position detection comprising cameras 42a positioned in elevator car 36 and in communication with main control unit 31, wherein a security measure S19 is triggered by the control unit if the position of the elevator user in the elevator car does not agree with the position of that elevator user which activated a predetermined elevator call. The control unit will not continue operation to a particular floor in case of a security issue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to add an extra security protocol provided by Finschi to the system taught by Beaubois/Freeman et al, since the described monitoring device would provide the elevator system with a way to monitor if an elevator user is an authorized location an if the elevator can be operated without any security breaches.
Claims 12-13 and 20-21, Finschi teaches different monitors 33 and loudspeakers 34 for letting security personnel and elevators users of possible security issues.
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.
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 additional elevator control system for controlling operation of elevator cars
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 2837
Prosecution Insights