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
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 12 November 2025.
Regarding Previous Claim Objections
Previous objection to claim 6 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the objected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 112
Previous rejection of claims 1-7 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the rejected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 5-7] with respect to rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, on pages 5-7, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “electromechanical apparatus comprising a panel having at least one operating button interconnected… for operating the electromechanical apparatus”, as well as “relay switch… a transceiver… microcontroller”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments and submits as follows.
First, the Examiner states that “UE 3” in Schuster is actually referring to mobile phone/user-equipment (UE) 3 in Fig. 1.
Second, claim 1 is not providing further details but a general recitation for the argued “panel having one operating button”. A person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, that the claim is referring to the control of an elevator via a mobile device; thus, the disclosure in Schuster is illustrating this type of systems. That is, it would be understood that mobile device 3 is controlling the elevator 1 via terminal 7 and elevator control 2 (Schuster’s Fig. 1), and that, for controlling and operating the elevator, every system will comprise buttons and relays to mechanically operate the elevator after receiving the wireless signal from a mobile device, as taught by the combination of Schuster and Eleid.
Third, although Applicant argues that “module 122 in the instant application augments the existing operation of the traditional functions”, the claim is not providing those details that would preclude the Examiner from the current interpretation, including how the argued module augments the operation.
Fourth, Eleid was used as a secondary reference, as a complement to Schuster, to demonstrate the obviousness of incorporating relay switch, transceiver and microcontroller into the Schuster’s system [Eleid – Paragraphs 7-9, 125].
Finally, the Examiner respectfully recommends the incorporation of details that show how the argued operating button and relay switch operate differently from known systems. That is, the incorporation of specific features at moment of operating the elevator would clarify the importance of the functionalities of the argued panel, buttons, relay and switches.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4, 6 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-7 are presented for examination.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0159890) in view of Eleid et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0355554).
Regarding claim 1, Schuster teaches a method for remotely operating an electromechanical apparatus via a wireless network (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
(a) providing a device configured to electrically couple to the electromechanical apparatus (interface 10 connects a device to an elevator for receiving instructions from UE 3 [Paragraphs 11-13]):
(i) the electromechanical apparatus comprising a panel having at least one operating button interconnected [(elevator control 2 for accessing panel of the elevator [Paragraphs 11-13]. Additionally, the claim is not providing further details but a general recitation for the argued “panel having one operating button”. A person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, that the claim is referring to the control of an elevator via a mobile device; thus, the disclosure in Schuster is illustrating this type of systems. That is, it would be understood that mobile device 3 is controlling the elevator 1 via terminal 7 and elevator control 2 (Schuster’s Fig. 1), and that, for controlling and operating the elevator, every system will comprise buttons and relays to mechanically operate the elevator after receiving the wireless signal from a mobile device. Although Applicant argues that “module 122 in the instant application augments the existing operation of the traditional functions”, the claim is not providing those details that would preclude the Examiner from the current interpretation, including how the argued module augments the operation);
(ii) the device comprising: (A) a control interface configured for electrical coupling to the panel of the electromechanical apparatus (elevator control 2 controlling elevator 1); (B) [(transceiving commands with UE 3 [Paragraph 14]), [([Paragraph 14]); and (C) a controller interconnected to the control interface [([elevator control 2]);
(b) electrically coupling the control interface to the panel ([Paragraph 14]); and
(c) providing a mobile application that is downloadable to the mobile device and that is configured to receive and access data pertaining to the operation and control of the electromechanical apparatus (mobile app for UE 3 [Paragraph 11]);
wherein the mobile application is configured to instruct the mobile device to transmit the command data wirelessly [(UE 3 sends commands to elevator 1), and wherein [(elevator 1 is then controlled based on the received command from UE 3 [Paragraphs 11-13]).
However, Schuster does not explicitly mention: to a relay switch… a transceiver… a microcontroller.
Eleid teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of mechanical systems, the following:
to a relay switch… a transceiver… a microcontroller (for the disclosed system (Fig. 1), relay switches belonging to elevators 100-101 are being remotely controlled by operations sent by EMMM server 121, where the device receiving the commands from EMMM 121 comprises a transceiver for communicating with the EMM 121 and a microcontroller to receive and execute according to orders from EMMM 121 [Paragraphs 7-9, 125]. Additionally, Eleid is used as a secondary reference, as a complement to Schuster, to demonstrate the obviousness of incorporating relay switch, transceiver and microcontroller into the Schuster’s system)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mechanical system (as taught by Schuster) my including transceiver, microcontroller, relay switches (as taught by Eleid) for the purpose of accessing an elevator remotely (Eleid – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 2, Eleid further teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the mobile application is configured to:(a) receive selection data from a user (as in Fig. 25, user controls UE’s mobile app for controlling the elevator [Paragraph 216]); and (b) in response to receiving the selection data, transmit the command data, said command data corresponding to the selection data (via app illustrated in Fig. 25, the user control the elevator (as it would happen with Schuster’s UE 3) [Paragraph 217]).
Regarding claim 3, Eleid further teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the mobile application is further configured to establish communication with the device prior to step (a) (connection between EMMM 121 and elevators 100-101 via network 120).
Regarding claim 4, Eleid further teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein, prior to step (a), the mobile application is further configured to:(c) receive elevator data (elevator info is presented to the UE as in Fig. 18-19 [Paragraph 14]); and (d) display a page on the mobile device, based on the elevator data, wherein the selection data is generated in response to user input on the page (the user is displayed with the elevator data on the UE based on user selection, as in Fig. 25 [Paragraphs 216-217]).
Regarding claim 5, Schuster further teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 or 2, wherein the electromechanical apparatus is selected from the group consisting of an elevator and a powered door (elevator 1 [Paragraph 17]).
Regarding claim 6, Schuster further teaches the method of any one of claims 1-4, wherein the transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver ([Paragraph 14]).
Regarding claim 7, Schuster further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the Bluetooth transceiver is a Bluetooth low energy (BLE) transceiver ([Paragraph 14]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
March 11, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633