DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/20/2026 previously entered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/04/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the final Office action on 02/20/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicants' arguments and remarks filed on 08/04/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicants' amendments overcome objections to the claims.
Applicants' cancelation of Claim 21 makes moot the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, 15-17, and 20 have been amended.
No New Matter was noticed.
Claims 2, 5, 18, and 21 have been canceled.
Claims 8 and 14 were previously canceled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-16 and 17-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 13, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gang et al. (CN 113740818 A) in view of Doemens et al. (EP 1087237 A2), Kech (US 2015/0029054 A1), and further in view of Mayer et al. (US 9,581,484 B2).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Gang et al. (‘818) in view of Doemens et al. (‘237), Kech (‘054), and Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches:
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: A method for training a radar sensor to determine positioning of an elevator car within an elevator system, the method comprising: ([006]: “in order to obtain the exact position of the elevator car 10, a radar transmitter 20 is usually set on the top of the elevator car 10, and a reflector 30 for reflecting radar signals is set on the top of the hoistway“; [089]: “when the transmitter and reflector of the radar are correctly installed, the corresponding distance-amplitude graph can be generated according to the echo signal received by the car at each designated position“). The pre-generated reference map, produced at each designated position before operation, trains the radar for later position and state determination.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: emitting, by the radar sensor, a set of one or more electromagnetic waves comprising a transmission signal; ([085]: “the transmitter 20 on the top of the elevator car can be controlled by the elevator control system to transmit radar signals“).
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: receiving, by the radar sensor, a target reflector signal and one or more reference reflector signal, wherein the target reflector signal comprises an electromagnetic wave of the set of one or more electromagnetic waves that is reflected from a main reflector configured within an elevator shaft, wherein the one or more reference reflector signals comprise a reference electromagnetic wave of the set of one or more electromagnetic waves that is reflected from one or more reference reflectors configured within the elevator shaft; ([085]: “which can be used by the reflector 30 and other objects in the elevator shaft After being reflected, an echo signal is formed, and the echo signal can be received by the antenna of the radar for ranging“; [089]: “the peak points corresponding to the reflector and the peak points corresponding to at least two reference objects are marked on the second distance-amplitude map, where the reference object may be in the elevator shaft Objects with a fixed position can be, for example, rail supports, hall door sills, and other objects“). Reflector 30 (O1) at the top of the hoistway is the main reflector. Reference objects O2 and O3, which are fixed radar-reflecting objects in the shaft, are the reference reflectors.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: calibrating, by the radar sensor, the target reflector signal; ([089]: “the peak points corresponding to the reflector and the peak points corresponding to at least two reference objects are marked on the second distance-amplitude map“). The peak of reflector O1 is recorded and marked on the reference map generated when the system is correctly installed [0089].
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: calibrating, by the radar sensor, the one or more reference reflector signals; ([089], as quoted above). The peaks of reference objects O2 and O3 are marked on the same pre-generated map.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: comparing, by the radar sensor, frequencies of the target reflector signal and the one or more reference reflector signals; ([087]: “The difference frequency between the echo signal and the transmitted signal forms an intermediate frequency signal of different frequencies.“; [091]: “the first distance-amplitude map can be combined with The second distance-amplitude map is compared to determine the peak point corresponding to the reflector and the peak point corresponding to the reference object on the first distance-amplitude map“). Each peak’s position on the horizontal axis is an intermediate frequency, so locating and relating the reflector and reference peaks compares their frequencies.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: determining, by the radar sensor and for each of the one or more reference reflector signals, a frequency distance between the target reflector signal and each of the one or more reference reflector signals, wherein the frequency distance is determined based on a difference in signal frequency between the target reflector signal and each of the one or more reference reflector signals; ([0104-0106]: “The first reference distance from the reflector O1 to the first reference object O2 is d1;” and “The second reference distance from the reflector O1 to the second reference object O3 is d3;“; [087]: “This time delay corresponds to the distance from the object to the transmitter.“). Each peak’s range corresponds to its intermediate frequency, so distances d1 and d3 between the reflector peak and each reference peak are determined from the difference in signal frequency between the peaks.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: generating, by the radar sensor, a distance measuring signal pattern, ([0102]: “the second curve is matched with the first curve The most similar target curve segment, and the peak points constituting the target curve segment are the peak points corresponding to the reflector O1, the first reference object O2, and the second reference object O3 in the first distance-amplitude graph“). The first curve, formed from the marked reflector and reference peaks, is a distance measuring signal pattern used to identify those peaks.
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Doemens et al. (‘237) teaches: wherein the distance measuring signal pattern comprises a matrix that is based on a set of one or more frequency distance, including the frequency distance, of the one or more reference reflector signals; ([0112]: “During a measurement, the signal phase values for each measurement path between radar sensor 2 and the relevant active reflector unit 24, 25 or 26 are determined for a plurality of radar signal frequencies. In the manner described above, these signal phase values are then converted to range values.“; [0066]: “at least two measured values are determined for different transmission paths and these measured values are combined in a geometric equation system in order to determine the spatial position of the load-receiving means“). Doemens arranges its measured range values two-dimensionally, by reflector path and by radar frequency, and combines them in an equation system. That is a matrix arrangement of reflector-specific, frequency-derived distance values.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the frequency-derived distances d1, d2, and d3 of Gang et al. (‘818) as a matrix indexed by reflector, following the path-by-path, frequency-by-frequency organization of Doemens et al. (‘237), to form the distance measuring signal pattern. One would have been motivated to do so because Doemens, which addresses radar position measurement of load-receiving means in lifting devices ([0001]), teaches that combining measured values from several transmission paths in a common, and preferably overdetermined, equation system serves “to detect possible error sources more quickly” and permits averaging that increases accuracy ([0067]). This directly serves the error-detection purpose of Gang et al. (‘818), which uses relationships among the reflector and reference peaks to detect a displaced or tilted reflector ([0100], [0113]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Gang et al. (‘818) already computes the full set of pairwise distances d1, d2, and d3 among the three peaks ([0104-0107]), and storing those values in an indexed array changes only their organization, not how they are measured.
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Kech (‘054) teaches: actuating, by the radar sensor, an electromechanical device coupled to the main reflector to move the main reflector between at least two positions within the elevator shaft, ([0016]: “the security device comprises a reflector and an adjusting device, and is suitably designed to move the reflector at least between a first position, in which it reflects the electromagnetic waves, and a second position, in which it reflects the electromagnetic waves to a reduced degree, wherein the security device has a drive which acts on the adjusting device“; [0055]: “The adjusting device 9 is connected to a drive 11 which is designed in the present embodiment as an electric motor.“; [0056]: “the drive 11 is connected to the electronics 13 of the radar-based fill level measurement device 1, and pivots the reflector 7 out of the second position II and into the first position I upon request by the electronics 13, such that a functions check can be carried out in an automated manner“). The electric-motor drive 11 is an electromechanical device coupled to the reflector, and the radar’s own electronics 13 actuate it. As applied to Gang et al. (‘818), the reflector is the main reflector 30 within the hoistway.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the main reflector 30 of Gang et al. (‘818) to an electromechanical drive actuated by the radar electronics, as taught by Kech (‘054). One would have been motivated to do so because Kech teaches that a radar-actuated reflector drive allows “an entirely automated process for verifying the proper functioning” of the radar device ([0036]), and Gang et al. (‘818) likewise seeks to detect the state of the transmitter and reflector during elevator operation without added sensors ([09], [069]), with its reflector mounted at the top of the hoistway, where manual manipulation is impractical. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Kech’s drive is a conventional electric motor wired to the radar electronics ([0055-0056]), and Gang et al. (‘818) already controls the radar through the elevator control system ([085]).
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches: wherein a signal frequency signature comprising a frequency oscillating signal that oscillates between a plurality of frequencies is generated based on the actuating; and (col. 5, lines 40-44: “the reference reflector 15 executes mechanical oscillations directed toward the fill-level measuring device with an oscillation frequency fOS amounting to less than half the repetition frequency fR, with which the sequential transmission signals S are sent“; col. 6, lines 3-6: “two oscillatory fork tines, which are caused to oscillate perpendicular to their longitudinal axes with mutually opposing phase via an electromechanical transducer“; col. 8, lines 9-13: “The reference reflector 15 of the invention is, thus, a target moved with an oscillation frequency fOS, whose movements show up in the time behavior of the echo functions“; col. 8, line 66 - col. 9, line 4: “oscillation-related distance changes of the reference reflector 15 relative to the fill-level measuring device bring about a phase modulation of the complex amplitude A(t, R1) arising at the position R1 of the reference reflector 15 in the echo functions EF(R)“; col. 10, lines 14-24: “movement spectra BRi of moved reflectors have also at alteration frequencies fΔ different from zero, depending on type and time dependence of the movement, an amplitude different from zero“). Mayer’s electromechanically (col. 6, lines 1-7) driven oscillation of the reflector toward the radar periodically modulates the reflector’s echo at the oscillation frequency fOS. Because “a frequency is only a change over time in the phase” (Doemens et al. (‘237) [0094]), the frequency of the reflector’s echo oscillates about its beat frequency, and Mayer resolves it at alteration frequencies other than zero. That is a signal frequency signature comprising a frequency oscillating signal that oscillates between a plurality of frequencies, generated by the actuation.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive the actuated main reflector of the combined Gang et al. (‘818) and Kech (‘054) system in an oscillation directed toward the radar at a known oscillation frequency, as taught by Mayer et al. (‘484), so that the reflector’s echo carries an oscillation-induced frequency signature. One would have been motivated to do so because Mayer teaches that identifying a reflector’s echo is “always problematic or even impossible, when other reflectors are located in the environment of the reference reflector” (col. 2, lines 9-12), and that the oscillation is used so that “the position of the reference reflector can be reliably identified” (col. 2, lines 26-28). Gang et al. (‘818) faces the same problem: its radar receives echoes from “the reflector 30 and other objects in the elevator shaft” ([085]) and must pick out the reflector’s peak from among them by curve matching ([0102]). Mayer is reasonably pertinent to that problem, as it addresses identification of a reference reflector among other reflectors in FMCW radar measurement. There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references evaluate FMCW intermediate-frequency spectra in which each reflector appears at its frequency difference (Gang et al. (‘818) [087]; Mayer col. 6, lines 23-38), and Mayer demonstrates reliable identification with oscillation amplitudes on the order of 100 μm (col. 6, lines 15-17), produced by an electromechanical transducer of the kind Kech’s drive provides ([0040], [0055]).
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches: determining, by the radar sensor, an obstruction based on a difference a frequency oscillation between the signal frequency signature and a set of one or more noise or obstruction signals. (col. 2, lines 18-24: “it is frequently not possible to distinguish the relative maximum of the echo function to be attributed to the reflection on the reference reflector from other relative maxima attributable to reflections on other microwave reflecting structures present in the container, such as e.g. installed objects, apparatuses or measuring devices introduced into the container“; col. 10, lines 8-10: “In the movement spectra BRi, static reflectors appear as a maximum at an alteration frequency fΔ of zero.“; col. 10, lines 22-28: “the reference reflector 15 is identified by ascertaining that movement spectrum Bi, which has in the real- and/or imaginary parts a marked maximum in the region of the oscillation frequency fOS of the reference reflector 15“). Mayer’s radar recognizes returns from static structures such as installed objects (obstructions) because they appear at an alteration frequency of zero, while the oscillating reflector appears at fOS. That is a determination of an obstruction based on the difference in frequency oscillation between the signature and the obstruction signals.
The motivation to combine Mayer et al. (‘484) with the Gang et al. (‘818) and Kech (‘054) system stated for the preceding limitation applies equally here and is incorporated. Mayer further teaches that the discrimination holds even when static reflectors “can have, due to shaking or unwanted vibrations at the location of use, measurable amplitudes at alteration frequencies fΔ different from zero” (col. 10, lines 36-44), which is the condition of fixed structures in an operating hoistway. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the rail supports and door sills of Gang et al. (‘818) are objects “with a fixed position” ([089]), so their returns appear at zero alteration frequency and are separable by the same evaluation of sequential echo functions.
Regarding Claim 13, Gang et al. (‘818) teaches the additional elements: A system for training a radar sensor to determine positioning of an elevator car within an elevator system, the system comprising: a memory device having executable instructions stored therein; and a processor, in response to the executable instructions, configured to: ([065]: “One or more processors;“; [066]: “Memory, used to store one or more computer programs;“; [067]: “When the one or more computer programs are executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors implement the radar state detection method as described in the first aspect.“). Gang et al. (‘818) further teaches: generate a set of one or more electromagnetic waves comprising a transmission signal; ([085], as quoted for claim 1). The remaining limitations of claim 13 are substantially identical to those of claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons, with the same motivations and expectations of success, set forth for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Gang et al. (‘818) in view of Doemens et al. (‘237), Kech (‘054), and Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: wherein the target reflector signal is associated with a static location corresponding to the main reflector. ([006]: “a reflector 30 for reflecting radar signals is set on the top of the hoistway“). The reflector is mounted at a fixed location at the top of the hoistway. In the combination, it oscillates about that mounting location.
Regarding Claim 4, Gang et al. (‘818) in view of Doemens et al. (‘237), Kech (‘054), and Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: wherein calibrating the target reflector signal comprises: monitoring, by the radar sensor, for the target reflector signal from reflection of the set of one or more electromagnetic waves by the main reflector. ([089]: “the corresponding distance-amplitude graph can be generated according to the echo signal received by the car at each designated position“; [085]: “the echo signal can be received by the antenna of the radar for ranging“).
Regarding Claim 6, Gang et al. (‘818) in view of Doemens et al. (‘237), Kech (‘054), and Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: wherein the one or more reference reflector signals are associated with static locations corresponding to the one or more reference reflectors. ([089]: “where the reference object may be in the elevator shaft Objects with a fixed position can be, for example, rail supports, hall door sills, and other objects“).
Regarding Claim 7, Gang et al. (‘818) in view of Doemens et al. (‘237), Kech (‘054), and Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: wherein calibrating the one or more reference reflector signals comprises: monitoring, by the radar sensor, for the one or more reference reflector signals from reflections of the set of one or more electromagnetic waves by the one or more reference reflectors. ([085]: “which can be used by the reflector 30 and other objects in the elevator shaft After being reflected, an echo signal is formed, and the echo signal can be received by the antenna of the radar for ranging“). The reference object peaks are also marked on the pre-generated map ([089]).
Regarding Claim 17, Gang et al. (‘818) in view of Kech (‘054), Mayer et al. (‘484), and Doemens et al. (‘237) teaches:
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: A method for calibrating signal frequency signature by a radar sensor in an elevator system, the method comprising: ([010]: “a radar status detection method for detecting the status of a radar transmitter and reflector“; [089]: “when the transmitter and reflector of the radar are correctly installed, the corresponding distance-amplitude graph can be generated according to the echo signal received by the car at each designated position“).
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: emitting, by the radar sensor, a set of one or more electromagnetic waves comprising a transmission signal to perform a calibration procedure with a reflector configured in a first position within an elevator shaft; ([085]: “the transmitter 20 on the top of the elevator car can be controlled by the elevator control system to transmit radar signals“; [006]: “a reflector 30 for reflecting radar signals is set on the top of the hoistway“). The reference map of [089] is generated with the reflector correctly installed in that first position.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: receiving, by the radar sensor, a first signal comprising reflection of the set of one or more electromagnetic waves by the reflector, wherein the first signal comprises an initial frequency; ([085]: “the echo signal can be received by the antenna of the radar for ranging“; [087]: “The difference frequency between the echo signal and the transmitted signal forms an intermediate frequency signal of different frequencies.“).
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: recording, by the radar sensor, the first signal corresponding to the first position of the reflector; ([089]: “the peak points corresponding to the reflector and the peak points corresponding to at least two reference objects are marked on the second distance-amplitude map“).
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Kech (‘054) teaches: actuating, by the radar sensor, an electromechanical device coupled to the reflector, causing the reflector to move between the first position and a second position within the elevator shaft, ([0016]: “the security device comprises a reflector and an adjusting device, and is suitably designed to move the reflector at least between a first position, in which it reflects the electromagnetic waves, and a second position, in which it reflects the electromagnetic waves to a reduced degree, wherein the security device has a drive which acts on the adjusting device“; [0056]: “the drive 11 is connected to the electronics 13 of the radar-based fill level measurement device 1, and pivots the reflector 7 out of the second position II and into the first position I upon request by the electronics 13“). The obviousness statement, motivation, and reasonable expectation of success stated for the Kech (‘054) actuating limitation of claim 1 apply equally here and are incorporated.
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches: wherein the signal frequency signature comprising a frequency oscillating signal that oscillates between a plurality of frequencies is generated based on the actuating; (col. 5, lines 40-44: “the reference reflector 15 executes mechanical oscillations directed toward the fill-level measuring device with an oscillation frequency fOS“; col. 8, line 66 - col. 9, line 4: “oscillation-related distance changes of the reference reflector 15 relative to the fill-level measuring device bring about a phase modulation of the complex amplitude A(t, R1) arising at the position R1 of the reference reflector 15 in the echo functions EF(R)“). Mayer’s method is itself a calibration method (col. 2, lines 23-28). The obviousness statement, motivation, and reasonable expectation of success stated for the corresponding Mayer et al. (‘484) limitation of claim 1 apply equally here and are incorporated.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: receiving, by the radar sensor, a second signal comprising reflection of the set of one or more electromagnetic waves by the reflector configured in the second position, wherein the second signal comprises a second frequency; ([0109]: “The first measured distance from the reflector O1 to the first reference object O2 is d1′;”; [0113]: “Δd1=d1′-d1, Δd2=d3′-d3, if d2=d2′, Δd1=Δd2≠0, it means that the reflector O1 moves down.”). Gang et al. (‘818) receives the echo of the reflector at a position different from its calibrated position, and per [087] the new range appears at a different intermediate frequency. In the combination, the second position is the one reached by the actuation.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: recording, by the radar sensor, the second signal corresponding to the second position of the reflector; ([087]: “After the radar receives the echo signal, it can generate the first distance-amplitude graph with the horizontal axis as the distance and the vertical axis as the amplitude according to the echo signal.“).
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: comparing, by the radar sensor, the initial frequency of the first signal with the second frequency of the second signal; ([0113] : “Δd1=d1′-d1, Δd2=d3′-d3, if d2=d2′, Δd1=Δd2≠0, it means that the reflector O1 moves down.”). The measured peak position d1′ is compared with the calibrated position d1, which on the FMCW range axis compares the second frequency with the initial frequency ([087]).
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: generating, by the radar sensor, a distance measuring signal pattern, ([0102]: “the second curve is matched with the first curve The most similar target curve segment“).
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Doemens et al. (‘237) teaches: wherein the distance measuring signal pattern comprises a matrix that is determined based on the initial frequency of the first signal compared with the second frequency of the second signal; ([0112]: “the signal phase values for each measurement path between radar sensor 2 and the relevant active reflector unit 24, 25 or 26 are determined for a plurality of radar signal frequencies” and “By continuously evaluating several successive measurements, the changes in distance are also determined.“). Doemens arranges per-path range values and their changes between successive measurements, which corresponds to the comparison of the first and second signals. The obviousness statement, motivation, and reasonable expectation of success stated for the Doemens et al. (‘237) matrix limitation of claim 1 apply equally here and are incorporated.
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches: determining, by the radar sensor and based on the signal frequency signature, a difference in frequency oscillation usable by the radar sensor to identify a reflector signal corresponding to the reflector from amongst a plurality of noise or obstruction signals; and (col. 10, lines 8-10: “In the movement spectra BRi, static reflectors appear as a maximum at an alteration frequency fΔ of zero.“; col. 10, lines 22-28: “the reference reflector 15 is identified by ascertaining that movement spectrum Bi, which has in the real- and/or imaginary parts a marked maximum in the region of the oscillation frequency fOS of the reference reflector 15“). The difference between the reflector’s alteration frequency (fOS) and that of the static reflectors (zero) is used to identify the reflector’s echo from among the others.
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches: determining, by the radar sensor, an obstruction based on the difference in frequency oscillation. (col. 2, lines 18-24: reflections on “other microwave reflecting structures present in the container, such as e.g. installed objects, apparatuses or measuring devices introduced into the container“; col. 10). For this and the preceding Mayer et al. (‘484) limitation, the obviousness statement, motivation, and reasonable expectation of success stated for the obstruction limitation of claim 1 apply equally and are incorporated.
Regarding Claim 19, Gang et al. (‘818) in view of Kech (‘054), Mayer et al. (‘484), and Doemens et al. (‘237) teaches the method according to Claim 17.
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches: wherein actuating the electromechanical device causes an adjustment of a height of the reflector. (col. 5, lines 40-44: “the reference reflector 15 executes mechanical oscillations directed toward the fill-level measuring device“). In Gang et al. (‘818), the reflector at the top of the hoistway faces the transmitter on top of the car ([06]), so oscillation directed toward the radar is vertical and adjusts the reflector’s height. The motivation and reasonable expectation of success stated for the Mayer et al. (‘484) limitations of claim 1 are incorporated. In addition, motion toward the radar is what changes the range, and therefore the phase and intermediate frequency of the echo, in the FMCW evaluation of Gang et al. (‘818) ([087]).
Regarding Claim 20, Gang et al. (‘818) in view of Kech (‘054), Mayer et al. (‘484), and Doemens et al. (‘237) teaches the method according to Claim 17.
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Kech (‘054) teaches: further comprising: actuating the electromechanical device causing the reflector to move to the first position; ([0049]: “the reflector is continuously moved into and back out of the beam path of the antenna. Such a continuous movement can either take place upon request, or permanently“; [0056]: “pivots the reflector 7 out of the second position II and into the first position I upon request by the electronics 13“). The motivation and reasonable expectation of success stated for the Kech (‘054) limitation of claim 1 are incorporated. Kech further teaches that the return to the first position allows verification “periodically every time the first position I is reached” ([0065]).
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: receiving a third signal comprising reflection of the set of one or more electromagnetic waves by the reflector configured in the first position; ([085]: “the echo signal can be received by the antenna of the radar for ranging“). The radar receives the reflector’s echo each time it measures, including when the reflector is back in its calibrated first position.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: recording the third signal corresponding to the first position of the reflector; ([087]: “After the radar receives the echo signal, it can generate the first distance-amplitude graph“).
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches: comparing the second signal with the third signal; and (col. 9, lines 57-65: “based on the time behavior of the amplitudes A(t, Ri) arising at the corresponding distance Ri in the echo functions EF(R) of the n sequential, received signals E1, ... , En, that distance Rref is ascertained, at which the real- and/or imaginary parts of the amplitude A(t, Ri) changes with an alteration frequency fΔRef lying in the region of the oscillation frequency fOS of the reference reflector 15“). Mayer compares the reflector’s echo across sequential received signals taken as the reflector moves through its positions, including successive returns to the same position.
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Mayer et al. (‘484) teaches: confirming the difference in frequency oscillation based on a comparison of the second signal with the third signal. (col. 11, lines 57-62: “based on time changes of the amplitudes A(t, Rref) of a plurality of sequentially recorded echo functions EF(R) at the reference reflector position Rref of the respective reference reflector 15, it is possible to determine the actual oscillation frequency of the respective reference reflector 15“; col. 11, line 66 - col. 12, line 5: “changes and/or deviations of the actual oscillation frequency fΔRef from the oscillation frequency fOS of this reference reflector 15 stored in the fill-level measuring device can be automatically recognized and even quantitatively determined“). Mayer confirms the reflector’s oscillation signature by comparing the oscillation frequency measured from sequential signals with the stored value.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare, in the combined system, the reflector’s echo after its return to the first position with its echo in the second position, and to confirm the oscillation signature from that comparison, as taught by Mayer et al. (‘484). One would have been motivated to do so because Mayer teaches that the actual oscillation frequency “enables a qualified monitoring of the functioning of the respective reference reflector” (col. 11, lines 66-67) and recognizes degradation such as accretions early (col. 12, lines 12-15), which serves the purpose of Gang et al. (‘818) of monitoring the state of the hoistway reflector during operation ([069]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Kech’s drive returns the reflector to the first position on request or continuously ([0049], [0056]), and Mayer’s comparison operates on the same sequential echo functions the combined FMCW system already records.
Claims 9-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gang et al. (CN 113740818 A) in view of Doemens et al. (EP 1087237 A2), Kech (US 2015/0029054 A1), and Mayer et al. (US 9,581,484 B2) further in view of Gang et al. (CN 111847155 A).
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, Gang et al. (‘818) in view of Doemens et al. (‘237), Kech (‘054), Mayer et al. (‘484), and Gang et al. (‘155) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: receiving a location determination request; ([085]: “During the operation of the elevator, if the elevator car is located at a designated position, the transmitter 20 on the top of the elevator car can be controlled by the elevator control system to transmit radar signals“). The elevator control system’s command at a designated position is a location determination request.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: emitting the set of one or more electromagnetic waves in response to the location determination request; ([085], as quoted above).
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: monitoring for the target reflector signal and the one or more reference reflector signals; ([085]: “the echo signal can be received by the antenna of the radar for ranging“).
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: recording the target reflector signal and the one or more reference reflector signals; ([087]: “After the radar receives the echo signal, it can generate the first distance-amplitude graph with the horizontal axis as the distance and the vertical axis as the amplitude according to the echo signal.“).
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Gang et al. (‘155) teaches: calculating, iteratively for each of the target reflector signal and the one or more reference reflector signals, a set of one or more frequency differences F(n−1)n=fn−1−fn over frequency domains f1, f2, . . . fn, wherein n=2 to N, where N comprises a total number of recorded signal peaks corresponding to the main reflector and the one or more reference reflectors; ([019]: “Acquiring the echo signals of the two adjacent reflectors; performing fast Fourier transform processing on the echo signals to obtain signal peaks corresponding to each of the echo signals;“; [020]: “The difference in the distance between the signal peaks corresponding to each of the echo signals is obtained as the distance between the two adjacent reflectors.“; [093]: “the distance between each adjacent reflector can be obtained by the ranging radar“). Taking the difference between each pair of adjacent FFT peaks, for each adjacent reflector pair, iteratively computing the differences between consecutive peak frequencies f(n-1) and f(n) over the recorded peaks.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compute, in the combined system, the difference between each pair of adjacent recorded peaks (reflector O1 and reference objects O2 and O3 of Gang et al. (‘818)), as taught by Gang et al. (‘155). One would have been motivated to do so because Gang et al. (‘818) matches a curve connecting “all the peak points in the first distance-amplitude graph” against the reference curve ([0102]), and Gang et al. (‘155), addressing the same elevator radar context, teaches that adjacent-peak differences directly yield inter-reflector spacings usable for identification ([016], [020]), giving the matching step a quantitative input. There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references process the same FFT-derived peak set of an FMCW elevator radar, and adjacent-peak subtraction is a direct operation on peaks Gang et al. (‘818) already extracts ([087]).
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: searching for a match of the distance measuring signal pattern to the set of one or more frequency differences; ([0102]: “the second curve is obtained by connecting all the peak points in the first distance-amplitude graph with the curve, and the second curve is matched with the first curve The most similar target curve segment“).
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: determining the match to the distance measuring signal pattern; ([0102]: “the peak points constituting the target curve segment are the peak points corresponding to the reflector O1, the first reference object O2, and the second reference object O3 in the first distance-amplitude graph“).
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: identifying the target reflector signal based on the match; and ([0102], as quoted above). The peak of reflector O1 is identified from the matched segment.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: determining a distance based on the target reflector signal. ([006]: “By processing the reflected echo signal, the distance between the transmitter 20 and the reflector 30 is calculated to determine the absolute position of the car.“).
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations are substantially identical to those of claim 9, performed by the processor of claim 13, and are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9
Regarding Claim 10, Gang et al. (‘818) in view of Doemens et al. (‘237), Kech (‘054), Mayer et al. (‘484), and Gang et al. (‘155) teaches the method according to Claim 9.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: wherein the location determination request comprises a request for the radar sensor to determine a height of the elevator car. ([006]: “By processing the reflected echo signal, the distance between the transmitter 20 and the reflector 30 is calculated to determine the absolute position of the car.“; [084]: “In an elevator, the car moves up and down in the elevator hoistway.“). The absolute position of a car moving vertically in the hoistway is its height.
Regarding Claims 11 and 16, Gang et al. (‘818) in view of Doemens et al. (‘237), Kech (‘054), Mayer et al. (‘484), and Gang et al. (‘155) teaches the method according to Claim 9.
Gang et al. (‘818) does not explicitly teach, but Doemens et al. (‘237) teaches: further comprising: populating, for each frequency domain, a matrix row with the set of one or more frequency differences for each recorded signal from a signal of a given frequency domain. ([0112]: “the signal phase values for each measurement path between radar sensor 2 and the relevant active reflector unit 24, 25 or 26 are determined for a plurality of radar signal frequencies. In the manner described above, these signal phase values are then converted to range values.“). Doemens populates, for each reflector path, a row of range values across the measurement frequencies. As applied to the combination, each row holds the adjacent-peak differences associated with a recorded peak.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the adjacent-peak frequency differences of the combined system row by row, one row per recorded peak, as Doemens et al. (‘237) organizes its per-path, per-frequency range values. The motivation and reasonable expectation of success stated for the matrix limitation of claim 1 are incorporated here. In addition, a row-per-peak arrangement lets each recorded peak’s differences be compared directly with the stored pattern in the matching step of Gang et al. (‘818) ([0102]).
Regarding Claim 16, the limitation is substantially identical to that of claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Gang et al. (‘818) in view of Doemens et al. (‘237), Kech (‘054), Mayer et al. (‘484), and Gang et al. (‘155) teaches the method according to Claim 9.
Gang et al. (‘818) teaches: further comprising matching the set of one or more frequency distances to the set of one or more frequency differences by frequency domain. ([0113]: “Δd1=d1′-d1, Δd2=d3′-d3, if d2=d2′, Δd1=Δd2≠0, it means that the reflector O1 moves down.“). Each stored reference distance (d1, d3, d2) is matched against its corresponding measured distance (d1′, d3′, d2′) for the same peak pair, that is, by frequency domain.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kishimoto (US 5,841,392) discloses a pulse-echo radar target whose reflector is vibrated along the direction facing the radar, so the reflected pulses carry a low-frequency component that distinguishes them from noise pulses created by other objects (col. 4, ll. 1-12). It is cumulative to Mayer et al. (‘484) for the oscillation-induced signature and the obstruction determination.
Steffens (DE 10 2009 027523 A1, Robert Bosch GmbH), provided in the IDS filed 05/04/2026, discloses an FMCW radar alignment system in which an ultrasonic actuator oscillates a reflector perpendicular to the radar sensor so that its reflected frequency is shifted away from interference from other objects ([0007], [0016]). It is cumulative to Mayer et al. (‘484) for the oscillation-induced signature and its separation from object reflections.
Chen et al. (US 2023/0139261 A1) discloses an elevator radar positioning system in which reflectors may exhibit dynamic movement, such as continuous or intermittent rotation, so that their reflections carry a unique signature distinguishable from other objects in the shaft. It also describes frequency-spectrum footprints that may be vectors or matrices, which relates to the signature and matrix limitations.
Rajab et al. (US 2020/0200892 A1) discloses a millimeter-wave real-time location sensing system in which radar anchors detect objects and determine range, direction-of-arrival, and position. It relates to radar-based localization and the FMCW signal processing underlying the claims.
Shtrom (US 2020/0319328 A1) discloses a passive radar identification device whose reflectors are arranged in a pattern encoding identification information. It relates to distinguishing particular reflectors by a characteristic reflected-signal signature.
Breed (US 2008/0215202 A1) discloses positioning systems using micropower impulse radar with radar reflectors at known locations. It relates to determining position from reflections off known reflectors. Although it relates to guiding a person to a location, the determination of position from reflections is related.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights