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 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 1-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test: is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claims 1-12 and 14 are directed to a method (process), claim 13 is directed to a computer program product (manufacture).
Step 2A – Prong One: do the claims recite a judicial exception?
Claim 1 recites:
A method for aligning guide rails of an elevator, the method comprising
measuring a first position of a guide rail of the guide rails at a fastening bracket of the guide rail when the bolts of the fastening bracket being open as first position data,
measuring a second position of the guide rail at the fastening bracket when the guide rail has been moved into a desired position while the bolts of the fastening bracket are open as second position data,
measuring a third position of the guide rail at the fastening bracket after the bolts of the fastening bracket are tightened and the guide rail has been released as third position data, a difference in the second position and the third position representing a spring back of the guide rail,
storing the first to third position data of the guide rail in a memory,
using an alignment apparatus for aligning the guide rails based on the first to third position data of the guide rail stored in the memory.
Independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea to measure multiple positions of a guide rail, store the measured data in a memory, and use the data for adjusting the guide rails. These steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a mental process that can be done manually by a human (e.g. using a person’s own memory to analyze and recall position data).
As such, claim 1 recites an abstract idea: Step 2A – Prong One: YES.
Step 2A – Prong Two: do the claims recite any additional elements or combination of additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception?
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using, a memory, parameters, mathematical model, regression analysis, regression model, machine learning algorithm, a computer program product, etc. (Independent Claim 1, and dependent claims 2-9 and 13-14) are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the aforementioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to measure, store, and process data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional elements of identified above (Claims 1, 2-9, and 13-14), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea: Step 2A – Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 requires storage of the position data in a memory. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The additional elements of claims 2-9 and 13-14 additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The recited elements do not meaningfully limit the claim because the limitations included in claims 2-9 and 13-14 do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 10-12 recite limitations regarding the use of an alignment apparatus that do meaningfully limit the claim.
Therefore, Step 2B:
Claims 1-9 and 13-14: NO, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 10-12: YES, the claims are eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H07242379 A (Nakada).
Regarding claim 1, Nakada discloses:
A method for aligning guide rails (1) of an elevator, the method comprising
measuring a first position (paragraph [0057], lines 4-9, “Loosen 7 At the same time, the rail bracket 5 is supported by the bracket gripper 545. In this state, the rail bracket 5 is lowered together with the centering fixing device 500 by the lifting drive device 520 and lowered until it hits the upper surface of the fastener plate 3. At this position, the clip bolt 7 is tightened by the rail clip fastening nut runner 544, and the guide rail 1 and the rail bracket 5 are finally tightened and fixed.”) of the guide rail at a fastening bracket (5) of the guide rail when the bolts (7) of the fastening bracket have been opened,
measuring a second position (“initial reference data” paragraph [0055] of the attached machine translation, line 5) of the guide rail at the fastening bracket when the guide rail has been moved into a desired position,
measuring a third position (paragraph [0059], lines 4-6, “The relative positional relationship with the rail gripping device 530 that grips 1 is obtained, and the deviation between this value and the already obtained initial reference data value is calculated.”) of the guide rail at the fastening bracket when the bolts of the fastening bracket have been tightened and the guide rail has been released, the difference in the second position and the third position representing a spring back of the guide rail (the second position indicates the position of the guide rail in an initial, centered position, the third position indicates the position of the guide rail after the bolts have been tightened, any difference between the two data points represents a spring back of the guide rail),
storing the first to third position data of the guide rail in a memory (400),
using an alignment apparatus (500) for aligning the guide rails based on the first to third position data of the guide rail stored in the memory (paragraph [0081], lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 2, Nakada further discloses:
further comprising categorizing the measured position data of the guide rails by at least one of parameters in a first group of parameters or any combination of the parameters in the first group of parameters comprising: a type of the guide rail, a type of the fastening bracket, a number of the fastening bracket, a type of fastening clips, a bracket distance, and a type of a divider beam based the guide rail being attached via the divider beams to a wall structures of an elevator shaft (the measured position data is categorized at least by the bracket distance).
Regarding claim 3, Nakada further discloses:
further comprising selecting the nearest match of the fastening bracket to be adjusted (paragraph [0068], lines 1-4) from the first to third position data stored in the memory and adjusting the position of the guide rail based on position data of the nearest match (paragraph [0074], lines 5-8 and paragraph [0078], lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 4, Nakada further discloses:
further comprising fitting the first to third position data into a mathematical model (“the deviation between this value and the already obtained initial reference data value is calculated” paragraph [0059], lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Nakada further discloses:
further comprising using an output of the mathematical model to determine an adjustment of a position of the guide rail at a fastening bracket (paragraph [0060], entire paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Nakada further discloses:
A computer program product comprising program instructions, which, when run on a computer (control device 300), causes the computer to perform a method as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Nakada further discloses:
wherein the desired position is based on an expected spring back amount (the “initial reference data” at the desired position at the second position is where the guide rail 1 is placed before the bolts are tightened and spring back occurs).
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H07242379 A (Nakada).
Regarding claims 6-8, Nakada teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 5.
Nakada is silent to the specifics of the mathematical model, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use regression analysis, a regression model, and a machine learning algorithm during processing of the measured position data as it is using known techniques to improve the method. See MPEP 2143, C.
Nakada teaches a base method for aligning guide rails of an elevator;
Nakada teaches a comparable method using mathematical analysis in a computer to calculate position data;
One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied regression analysis and a machine learning algorithm to calculate the effects of the measured positions of the guide rail on the overall positioning of the brackets and process the data with a machine learning algorithm;
Utilization of regression analysis and machine learning algorithm would increase the speed and accuracy of the position analysis and resulting rail placement and adjustment; thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply regression analysis and machine learning to the method of Nakada.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H07242379 A (Nakada) in view of US 9751728 B2 (Mertala).
Regarding claim 9, Nakada teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 4.
Nakada is silent to the method comprising position data measured from several different shafts.
However, Mertala teaches:
A method for aligning guide rails, and
performing the method in different elevator shafts (col. 8, line 61).
The resulting combination of Nakada and Mertala teaches:
further comprising using guide rail position data measured from several different shafts to train the mathematical model.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to collect position data from multiple shafts to train the mathematical model of Nakada so that the computer can accurately position guide rails in varying shafts with different dimensions.
Regarding claim 10, Nakada teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1.
Nakada does not teach the attachment means movable in the second direction at each end of a positioning unit individually movable end parts of an alignment unit.
However, Mertala teaches:
An alignment apparatus (400, figure 12) for aligning guide rails, and
a first direction (S3) extends horizontally and is perpendicular to a second direction (S2), the guide rails separated in the second direction, and
the alignment apparatus comprises
a positioning unit (100) extending horizontally across an elevator shaft in the second direction (S2) and comprising first attachment means (140, 150) movable in the second direction at each end of the positioning unit for supporting the positioning unit on an opposite wall structures or other support structures in the elevator shaft,
an alignment unit (200) extending across the elevator shaft in the second direction and being supported with support parts (260, 270) on each end portion of the positioning unit so that each end portion of the alignment unit is individually movable in relation to the positioning unit in a third direction (S3) perpendicular to the second direction, and comprising second attachment means (240, 250) movable in the second direction at each end of the alignment unit for supporting the alignment unit on opposite guide rails in the elevator shaft, said second attachment means comprising gripping means (245, 255) for gripping on the guide rail, whereby
opposite guide rails (51, 52) can be adjusted in relation to each other and in relation to the elevator shaft with the alignment apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an adjustable alignment apparatus as taught by Mertala with the method of Nakada with a reasonable expectation of success so the apparatus could be supported by the walls and/or guide rails on both sides of the elevator shaft. The attachment means of Mertala extend and retract to reach across hoistways of varying size and support the apparatus to reduce movement of the apparatus during alignment operations.
Regarding claim 11, Nakada further teaches:
further comprising controlling the alignment apparatus via a controller (300).
Regarding claim 12, Nakada further teaches:
further comprising using a contact-free measuring system (reference detectors 552, 553) for measuring a distance from the guide rail to a plumb line (10) arranged in a vicinity of the guide rail.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument on pages 6-7 of the Remarks that using an alignment apparatus integrated the method of claim 1 into a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 USC §101 rejection above, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea to measure multiple positions of a guide rail, store the measured data in a memory, and use the data for adjusting the guide rails. These steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a mental process that can be done manually by a human (e.g. using a person’s own memory to analyze and recall position data). Using an alignment apparatus in the method of claim 1 does not resolve the question of how the guide rail positions are being measured and in what memory the data is stored. Potentially, the method of claim 1 could be completed by a person measuring length by hand and committing the position data to said person’s own internal memory.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that independent claim 1, as amended, is not disclosed by Nakada. On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant discusses the disclosure of Nakada in paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and interprets the disclosure as stating that the initial measurement is taken on one guide rail and the apparatus is then moved and the subsequent measurement is on a higher, different guide rail rather than the same rail. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis, reading back further in Nakada’s disclosure to paragraph [0053], lines 5-7 the lowermost guide rail member is centered and fixed manually. Nakada then uses the manually centered lowermost rail to hold the centering and fixing device 500 (paragraph [0054]) and the alignment process continues for guide rail members above the lowermost guide rail. Regardless, the individual guide rail members that are in alignment with each other all constitute a common guide rail. There are two guide rails that extend throughout the shaft, one on either side of the shaft to support the elevator car during operation.
Regarding the argument on page 9 in reference to the 35 USC §103 rejections of dependent claims 6-8 and 9-12 that the dependent claims are patentable based on dependency to claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as claim 1 stands rejected under 35 USC §101 and 35 USC §102.
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 MICHELLE M MUDWILDER whose telephone number is (571)272-6068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am - 7:30 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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at (571)272-2097. 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.
/M.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights