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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7 and 14 include the limitation “if the mappings from the first code event data”. This limitation should be changed to state “if the mappings from the first code events data” for consistency
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 7, 11 and 14 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.
Claims 3 and 11 include the limitation “where the second lift device is the same as the first lift device”. However Claims 1 and 9, from which these claims depend, describe a mapping corresponding to a first lift device to be used to interpret data from a second lift device. It is unclear how two devices can be the same device. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “where the second lift device is a same type of device as the first lift device”.
Claims 7 and 14 include the limitation data “see if the mappings from the first code event data correctly predict the device events”. However it is unclear whether applicants intend to reference the first device events or the second device events. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “see if the mappings from the first code event data correctly predict the second device events”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(2) as being anticipated by Tyni et al. (US 7,423,398 B2).
Claims 1 and 9: Tyni et al. discloses a method and system for monitoring and managing lift devices, comprising: first code events data (command to open or close door) from a first lift device controller (control logic 26) for a door of a first lift device (elevator) (column 5 lines 52-54) transmitted to functional block (21) of a computing device (column 5 line 66 through column 6 line 2). First sensor information (tacho signal) from a first sensor on the first lift device (column 5 lines 54-59) is transmitted to the computing device (column 5 line 66 through column 6 line 2). The first sensor information is converted to information about different first device events (door opening, closing and re-opening operations), and correlations between the different first device events with the first code events data are mapped in order to remove data corresponding to re-opening door operations (column 6 lines 2-6). The mappings are stored and used to interpret (infer) second code events data from a second lift device controller for a door of a second lift device as second device events during a breaking-in period, and using these second device events to monitor and control the second lift device (column 12 lines 15-26).
Claims 2 and 10: Tyni et al. discloses a method and system as stated above, where transmitting first code events data from a first lift device controller for a first lift device to a computing device includes transmitting timing information for the first code events data, and transmitting first sensor information from the first lift device to the computing device includes transmitting timing information for the first sensor information so as to correspond to each instant of time (column 3 lines 3-7).
Claims 3 and 11: Tyni et al. discloses a method and system where the mappings are used during a breaking-in period of a second lift device as stated above. The second lift device then is a same type as the first lift device in order to interpret the mappings and apply them to the breaking-in period of the second lift device (column 12 lines 15-26).
Claims 5 and 13: Tyni et al. discloses a method and system as stated above, where second sensor information corresponding to at least one of current of motor driving the door, or motor friction, is transmitted from a second sensor on the first lift device to the computing device, and the first sensor information and second sensor information is converted to information about first device events (column 3 lines 26-29).
Claims 8 and 15: Tyni et al. discloses a method and system as stated above, where using second device events to monitor and control the second lift device further comprises using second sensor information corresponding to at least one of current of motor driving the door, or motor friction, from the second lift device with the second device events to monitor and control the second lift device (column 3 lines 26-29).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyni et al. (US 7,423,398 B2) in view of Kusserow et al. (US 2020/0198933 A1).
Claims 4 and 12: Tyni et al. discloses a method and system as stated above, but fails to disclose the first sensor information to be converted to information about first device events using computer vision artificial intelligence.
However Kusserow et al. teaches a method and system for monitoring and managing lift devices, where first sensor information from a camera system (page 5 paragraph [0068]) is converted to information about first device events (page 1 paragraph [0010]) using computer artificial intelligence (machine learning system) (page 7 paragraph [0089]). Due to the first sensor information being from a camera, the first sensor information is converted using computer vision artificial intelligence.
Given the teachings of Kusserow et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed in Tyni et al. with providing the first sensor information to be converted to information about first device events using computer vision artificial intelligence. Doing so would “allow for higher generalizability with lower manual effort [without] necessarily requir[ing] training data where labelled signal segments are used to ‘teach’ a machine learning system by example” as taught in Kusserow et al. (page 7 paragraph [0089]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyni et al. (US 7,423,398 B2) in view of Schuster et al. (US 8,540,057 B2).
Claim 6: Tyni et al. discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose the first sensor to be a camera.
However Schuster et al. teaches a method for monitoring and managing lift devices, where sensor information is transmitted from a sensor (second sensor 6) described as a camera (column 6 lines 57-65). The sensor is included in device (10) (column 6 lines 16-18), shown in Fig. 1 to be mounted on a first lift device (car).
Given the teachings of Schuster et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed in Tyni et al. with providing the first sensor to be a camera. Doing so would allow the first sensor to be mounted to the lift device “to detect items of maintenance information for modernization to an efficiency-optimized design of the elevator installation” as taught in Schuster et al. (column 16 lines 2-6).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyni et al. (US 7,423,398 B2) in view of Moore et al. (US 4,512,442).
Claims 7 and 14: Tyni et al. discloses a method and system as stated above, but fails to disclose the mappings to be updated by monitoring the first code events data and the first sensor information to see if the mappings from the first code event data correctly predict the device events, and if not correcting the mappings.
However Moore et al. teaches a method for monitoring and managing lift devices, where mappings are updated by monitoring first code events data corresponding to opening/closing of a door, and first sensor information corresponding to whether a door pump was observed to see if the mappings from the first code event data correctly predict the device events, and if not correcting the mappings (column 11 lines 13-22).
Given the teachings of Moore et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed in Tyni et al. with providing the mappings to be updated by monitoring the first code events data and the first sensor information to see if the mappings from the first code event data correctly predict the device events, and if not correcting the mappings. Doing so would allow for “self-correcting malfunctions” until exceeding an “associated parameter”, in which “an elevator mechanic should be immediately assigned to correct the problem” as taught in Moore et al. (column 11 lines 13-37), thereby improving accuracy of prediction which would reduce costly troubleshooting (column 1 lines 57-62).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2013/0073260 A1 and US 2016/0012707 A1 pertaining to monitoring and mapping sensed data to event data of lift devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights