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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/2/23. These drawings are approved.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of collecting data, analyzing said data, and outputting a result based on the analyzed data without significantly more.
Step 1, Prong One: Claims 1, 16, and 19 recite an abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) receiving images (data gathering); interaction analysis and “failure” detection (mathematical algorithm); and “invoking predefined actions” (generic output based on the mathematical analysis of the collected data).
Step 1, Prong two: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited elements are generic and perform their conventional functions. Cameras are used to capture images; and the control panel apparatuses are well-known elevator call kiosks or terminals performing standard elevator call request functions. “Invoking one or more predefined actions in response to detecting a failure” does not provide a meaningful limitation or any “real” solution to a determined problem. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2: No inventive concept.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no technical improvement has been claimed for any mechanical structure or operation of an elevator system. The recited invention does not solve any specific mechanical or physical problem in elevator systems.
Claims 2-15, 17-18, and 20-22, these depends claims only include information related to the abstract idea of the independent claims they depend from. These claims do not provide any limitations that would transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1-15 and 22 recite a method for monitoring a passenger interaction with one or more control panel apparatuses, however the original specification does not provide the specific technical algorithm used to determine “aspects” of passenger interaction with the control panel apparatuses, failure detection of one or more control panel apparatuses, or how anything (predefined actions) is invoked in response to the failure detection. The claims recite various steps of operations, but nothing in the original documents tells us how anything is actually accomplished.
Claims 16-21 recite a monitoring system or a control apparatus comprising cameras and a “computer” or interaction analyzer for performing a series of operations, however the original documents do not provide the specific manner in which the recited operation can be accomplished. The original specification only repeats the same information as recited in the claims, but does not describe how anything is performed.
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 1-22 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. The claims include several limitations directed to a series of steps for monitoring the interaction of an elevator passenger with one or more control panel apparatus, or a series of structural components (cameras and computer units) for monitoring the interaction of an elevator passenger with one or more control panel apparatus, or a control panel apparatus for placing a transport call to an elevator system. However, it is unclear how any of the recited operations can be performed or accomplished since the claims do not include the specific technical algorithm which applicant regards as his invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, and 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haipus et al (US Patent 9856107).
The claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101 and 112 (a)/(b). However, prior art will be applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner. If applicant believes the examiner’s interpretation of the claimed subject matter is wrong, then applicant needs to amend the claims in a way that a clear invention can be provided.
Claim 1, 16, 19, 21, and 22, Haipus et al teaches a method/monitoring system for monitoring a passenger interaction with one or more control panel apparatuses 110 located in a landing of an elevator system, the method comprises: receiving images of passengers, captured by cameras 170, moving in a lobby area of a building; analyzing the captured images by an elevator controller 120 in order to determine among other things a count of the people in the lobby area (one aspect of the interaction between the control panel apparatus and the people/passengers in the lobby area of a building) or a destination request call; determining a failure detection for the control panel apparatus 110 based on the analysis of the captured data (a passenger belonging to a group gives an elevator group call using the control panel apparatus, the group size is registered with the elevator call by the passenger, the entered group size is compared to the data observed by camera 170, and a failure is determined when the comparison is greater than a predetermined threshold, see for example the description given in col. 6 lines 7-16); and invoking one or more predefined actions in response to detecting the failure (the group sized is rectified based on the observation data from cameras 170, see col. 6 lines 16-20).
Claim 2, Haipus et al describes, col. 6 lines 38-47, call giving devices (control panel apparatus 110) including observation means in the form of one or more cameras 170 for capturing images of passengers operating the control panel apparatuses 110.
Claim 3, Haipus et al teaches elevator controller 120 and group controller 101 for analyzing the images captured by cameras 170.
Claim 4, Haipus et al teaches controllers 120/101 analyzing images of passengers captured by cameras 170 during a specific time period (while moving in the lobby of a building).
Claims 5-7 and 17-18Haipus et al describes, col. 5 lines 30-67 and col. 6 lines 1-64, controllers 120/101 analyzing different actions by possible elevator passengers while these passengers interact with one or more control panel apparatuses 110 located in the lobby of a building, the different interactions are tracked by using the plurality of cameras in the lobby.
Claims 9, 15, and 20, Haipus et al describes for example in col. 9 lines 21-37 that visual instructions are provided to a passenger when a failure is detected.
Claims 10 and 12-13, Haipus et al describes control panel apparatuses 110 comprising car reader devices 115. Additionally, Haipus et al describes for example in col. 5 lines 37-47 that a time parameter is taken into consideration when a potential passenger is trying to register a destination call using the control panel apparatus 110.
Claim 11, Haipus et al describes for example in col. 5 lines 61-67 and col. 6 lines 1-6 how the distances between adjacent control panel apparatuses in a lobby of a building and a passenger trying to register a destination call is taken into consideration when a controller 120/101 determines a potential failure in the destination call request process.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haipus et al (US Patent 9856107) and Kitov (US Publication 2018/0244491).
The difference between the subject matter of claims 8/14 and the teachings of Haipus et al is that the claims recite a preferred type of analysis method. Although, a preferred algorithm is not given any patentable weight, the teachings by Kitov will be introduced to show elevator controllers can apply an artificial neural network to the analysis of data.
Kitov teaches a method/system for determining allocation of at least one elevator in an elevator system, the system comprises a machine learning module 202 and a at least one processing module, wherein the machine learning module provides an artificial neural network for computing allocation decision for an elevator system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use artificial neural networks, since they can learn and model complex passenger behaviors and optimize traffic flow leading to faster service.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents cited in the attached PTO-892 teach other elevator systems that monitor or track passenger movement .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Eduardo Colon Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights