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- 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-16, 18-20 recite a method (or corresponding apparatus) comprising detecting a trigger event, obtaining profile information and triggering the use of a mode. All of these steps could be performed in a human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because in the case of the apparatus claims, the structural elements are mere extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception, and are merely a field of use.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a computer program
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 1-20 are 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 1 and 9 recite the step of “obtaining a trigger event..’. It is unclear what obtaining an event entails. This renders the claims indefinite. Claims 2-8 and 10-20 are rejected because they inherit this indefiniteness. For the purpose of this action, it is assumed that ‘detecting a trigger event..’ is meant instead.
Claims 1 and 9 recite the step of “allowing the use of a specific application mode..’. It is unclear what allowing something to happen entails. How would it be determined if this limitation is infringed? This renders the claims indefinite. Claims 2-8 and 10-20 are rejected because they inherit this indefiniteness. For the purpose of this action, it is assumed that ‘triggering the use of a specific application mode..’ is meant instead.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bahjat et al (US 2009/0294221).
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20: Bahjat et al teach a computer-implemented method, comprising the steps of: executing a people transit (elevator) system associated user application (programmable touch-screen 42 or hand-held 75), the people transit associated user application enabling a use of multiple operation modes (normal, VIP and handicapped modes, see [0022] and [0029]. All of these provide guidance to the user, and may be considered a guidance mode); detecting a trigger event associated with the people transit system (RFID [0029]); obtaining profile information (via RFID) associated with a user (VIP) using the people transit system associated user application [0029;] and triggering the use of a specific application mode (VIP mode) among multiple application modes based on the trigger event and the profile information. A processor and code are inherent to a programmable touch-screen.
Claim 2: Bahjat et al disclose causing transmission of information (passenger ID information, [0029]) associated with the trigger event and at least part of the profile information; receiving information selected based on the information associated with the trigger event and at least part of the profile information; and causing display of the information (displaying the floor of user’s office, and assignment of specific elevator to the VIP) .
Claim 3, 11: [0029] teaches the trigger event comprises identification (of the VIP user) information associated with the people transit system.
Claim 4, 12: Bahjat et al disclose that the trigger event comprises a location associated with the user (inherent to presence of the VIP disclosed in [0029].
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14: The destination call in [0031] is sending at least one command to a controller to control an entity of the people transit system.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M IACOLETTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5789. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am -5 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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571 272 5560. 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.
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights