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
Figure 1A, 1B, and 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated as shown in figures 1A, 1B, and 5 of application 18/157411. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
4. Claims 1-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of data monitoring and analysis without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving one or more parameters, determining a data profile based on the received parameters, and determine an output based on the reading of the data profile. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because creating a data profile and determining anything based on said profile can be performed mentally. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because while claim 1 mentions physical components such as a locking mechanism and a “door driving system”, these elements are considered insignificant post-solution activity since they are secondary to the main claimed process of the “apparatus”. The door profile created with parameters descriptive of the movement of an elevator door use conventional data gathering to output a state of a component. The recited process does not recite any improvement to the elevator door driving system itself or the locking mechanism used to secure an elevator door to any preferred position.
Claim 2 only recite that “something” will be done is a “compromised operation is detected. This does not add anything to the recited process that would change the process into an eligible process.
Claims 3 and 19, adding the use of a motor and that the data profile is related to the motor does not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 4, reciting the specific type of data of the profile, motor current, does not change the nature of the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 20, the connection of the motor to the elevator door is considered insignificant pot -solution activity, since it dot change anything about the abstract idea.
Claims 6-10, other structural components of the elevator system do not turn the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 11-12, limitations directed to portions of a signal or the signals (profile) themselves are not patent eligible.
Claim 17, the recited method for monitoring operation of the locking mechanism includes the same limitations described above in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the method is also considered an abstract idea for the same reasons given above.
Claim 18, a computer code or program is not patent eligible. Even if the claim is amended to recite the non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory readable medium includes the rejected method of claim 17.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
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.
In reference to claim 1, a patent claim must be limited to one of the four following categories of patentable subject matter: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Mixed claims are not allowed; a single claim cannot be directed to a system and a method. The preamble of claim 1 is written as an apparatus claim, however the body of claim 1 is directed to a method of operation. Mixed claims create legal ambiguity over whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is merely sold or when the user performs the method of operation. Additionally, the claim does not specify how the “apparatus” determines the door movement profiles based on received parameters or detect “compromised operations”. Clear boundaries for “compromised operations” “characteristics of the door movement profile”, and portions of a profile that represent predefined traveling distance must be part of the claim, since the original description of the invention does not provide support for all possible scenarios. What “predefined traveling distances” is applicant referring to?
In reference to claim 2, what “predefined action” is being claimed. No clear boundary exists, since applicant does not have any support for all possible actions being taken by an “apparatus” to respond to detected compromised operations.
In reference to claims 3, 16, and 19, how does “the apparatus” detect compromised operations on a locking mechanism based on the power consumption of a motor. Patents are given to the novel manner in which a recited system performs an operation; it is not enough to say a system will perform an action without recited how it will perform it.
In reference to claim 4, it is not clear how a “portion” of a graph or profile is selected to determine a “compromised operation”. Additionally, the claim does not specify what a “compromised operation” could possible be. The specification does not provide any clarity for this limitation and does not provide a description for all possible operations that can be interpreted as “compromised”.
In reference to claims 5 and 20, how is the position of a “predefined component” tracked?
In reference to claim 7, is the lock hook applied or not applied to selectively engage or disengage the lock latch? The term “may be applied” needs to be removed.
In reference to claim 11, how do “portions of a graph” have anything to do with the operation of a locking mechanism? As stated above in the 35 USC 101 rejection, portions of a signal are not patent eligible.
In reference to claim 12, the specific “aspect of movement” must be part of the claim. Applicant did not provide all possible aspects of movement of a door in the original specification. Claims must distinctly specify what applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 includes the same indefinite and unclear subject matter included in claim 1.
In reference to claims 17 and 18, the claims includes the same indefinite language recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1, which claims 2-12 depend from, is directed to an apparatus for monitoring the operation of a locking mechanism, wherein the apparatus performs a specific algorithm (method of operation). However, claims 2-12 do not further limit the apparatus or its method of operation. Claims 2-12 do not recite any other steps that the apparatus will take to monitor the operation of the locking mechanism. It seems the claims are directed to the overall operation of the elevator system since they recite other structural elements of the system. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroder-Brumloop et al (US Patent 5587565).
Claims 1 and 17, Schroder-Brumloop et al teaches an apparatus 10 and a method for monitoring and operating an elevator car door 12, wherein the apparatus is arranged to: receive parameters such as motor speed and distance traveled that represent movement of the elevator door 12, determine and stores a door profile descriptive of the door movement (as described in fig. 4) in relation to the open/closed position of the door, and detect a compromised operation (misalignment or slippage) based on the movement profile as described for example in col. 5 lines 44-49 and col. 6 lines 1-11.
Schroder-Brumloop et al discloses the claimed invention except for the use of the term “locking mechanism”. Applicant has not provided what he means by a locking mechanism and Schroder-Brumloop et al describes in col. 6 lines 1-11 controlling mechanical elements of the elevator door such as linkages and gears. It would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a locking mechanism having a linkage since said linkage would physically connect the door to a lock which can be attached to a door jam or a second moving door, the linkage ensures the lock engages or disengages based on the position of the door. Additionally, gears provide precise engagement and disengagement.
Claim 2, Schroder-Brumloop et al teaches in col. 6 lines 8-11 that if a compromised situation is detected, then an electronic, audio, or visual signal is generated.
Claims 3-4 and 19, Schroder-Brumloop et al teaches the driving system including motor 26. The movement profile shown in fig. 4 of Schroder-Brumloop et al has been described as an example of a profile used to control movement of the elevator car door. The preferred parameters selected to determine a desired profile is considered a design choice and it would be based on the intended use of the used profile. Additionally, Schroder-Brumloop et al describes in col. 4 lines 3-46 that other profiles can also be used.
Claims 5 and 20, Schroder-Brumloop et al teaches electric motor 26 coupled to the elevator door through a shaft 28 and means 30. Schroder-Brumloop et al further describes apparatus 10 tracking the position of elevator door 12 by the use of encoder 16.
Claim 6, Schroder-Brumloop et al describes in col. 6 lines 7-8 the use of a driving belt. Schroder-Brumloop et al also shows the use of a belt in fig. 1.
Claim 9, Schroder-Brumloop et al describes elevator door 12 driven by a driving system that includes motor 26.
Claim 11, Schroder-Brumloop et al describes in fig. 4 a movement profile including data related to the traveling distance of the door.
Claim 12, Schroder-Brumloop et al describes a door movement profile including information related to the speed of the door as a function of position (distance traveled).
Claim 13, Schroder-Brumloop et al teaches an elevator car comprising: an elevator door 12 movable between an open position and a closed position; a door driving system comprising a motor 26 having a shaft 28 and means 30 for converting the rotational motion of the shaft to a linear motion of the door; and a door controller 18 for controlling operation of the door driving system and monitoring operation of different parts related to the elevator door such as encoders (16), pulleys (30), and mechanical elements such as gears, linkage, or a driving belt that are related to a locking/closing mechanism of the door, wherein the door controller receives parameters such as motor speed and distance traveled which represent movement of the elevator door 12, determines and stores a door profile descriptive of the door movement (as described in fig. 4) in relation to the open/closed position of the door, and detect a compromised operation (misalignment or slippage) based on the movement profile as described for example in col. 5 lines 44-49 and col. 6 lines 1-11.
Schroder-Brumloop et al discloses the claimed invention except for the use of the term “locking mechanism”. Applicant has not provided what he means by a locking mechanism and Schroder-Brumloop et al describes in col. 6 lines 1-11 controlling mechanical elements of the elevator door such as linkages and gears. It would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a locking mechanism having a linkage since said linkage would physically connect the door to a lock which can be attached to a door jam or a second moving door, the linkage ensures the lock engages or disengages based on the position of the door. Additionally, gears provide precise engagement and disengagement.
Claim 14, Schroder-Brumloop et al teaches door 12 as an elevator car door.
Claim 16, Schroder-Brumloop et al teaches the driving system including motor 26. The movement profile shown in fig. 4 of Schroder-Brumloop et al has been described as an example of a profile used to control movement of the elevator car door. The preferred parameters selected to determine a desired profile is considered a design choice and it would be based on the intended use of the used profile. Additionally, Schroder-Brumloop et al describes in col. 4 lines 3-46 that other profiles can also be used.
Claim 18, Schroder-Brumloop et al teaches in fig. 3 and corresponding description a microprocessor 40 in communication with a memory 42 for automatically controlling the movement of elevator car door 12.
Claim(s) 7-8, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroder-Brumloop et al as applied to claims 1-6, 9, 11-14, and 16-20 above, and further in view of Karner et al (US Patent 7607517).
Claim 7, although the locking mechanism recited in claim 7 is a conventional locking mechanism including a hook and a latch, Karner et al will be introduced to show that type of lock mechanisms is used in elevator systems.
Karner et al teaches a locking device that includes a lock hook 10(or 110) and lock latch, wherein the door hook is attached to an elevator door and the lock latch is connected on an element related to the door (described in col. 3 lines 29-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a lock hook/lock latch combination as a lock mechanism for the elevator door, since said lock mechanism has a construction that needs only a small space and provides the advantage of being mounted on even thin structures. Karner et al provides this and other advantages of their locking mechanism in col. 2 lines 28-62.
Claim 8, Karner et al describes in fig. 5 and corresponding description the manner in which their locking mechanism will be activated based on the position of the elevator car door.
Claims 10 and 15, Karner et al teaches an elevator car door and a landing door being connected to each through a door coupler as shown in fig. 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents describe other elevator systems that include different mechanical and electrical elements for monitoring movement of an elevator door.
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