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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 8-12 under Mendelsohn et al have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mendelsohn et al and Fanson as described below. Even though the new document, Fanson, does not explicitly focus on elevators, it is analogous art to the primary reference because it is directed to serial communication systems and data transmission. The primary reference identifies that the elevator control unit must exchange operational messages with an operational panel, which includes a plurality of buttons, across a serial data bus. A person of ordinary skill in the art looking to improve the operation of an elevator system would easily look to a general data communication field to solve the issue of communication failure.
In reference to the comments with respect to the drawing objection, the claims refer to a remote-control device and this circuit element is not part of any of the original drawings. Therefore, if it is claimed it must be part of the drawings.
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 1-6 and 8-14 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 are directed to an elevator operation device comprising an operation panel and a control unit. By stating that the control unit sends a request to a “remote control device”, the claim introduces a new element without clarifying whether that remote control device is part of the elevator operation device or just an external device. It is unclear if the remote-control device sends anything back to the local control unit once it receives “the elevator operation request”. It is ambiguous and confusing what the functional role of the remote-control device is after acting as a receiver rather than a controller.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the remote-control device must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 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) 1-6 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendelsohn et al (US Patent 4493391), of record and Fanson (US Patent 10162782).
Claim 1, Mendelsohn et al teaches a modular operation device of an elevator system comprising: an operation panel 20 comprising a plurality of button units 18, the button units receive a desired elevator operation command from an elevator passenger (col. 3 lines 3-5) and generate a light on a lamp 24 indicating that a hall call has been registered (see col. 3 lines 15-35); a control unit 156 (car controller) receives the messages from the plurality of buttons and sends the received information to a group controller (see for example fig. 2 and col. 5 lines 40-60), wherein the plurality of buttons units are in communication with the control unit via a serial bus 70 (as described in fig. 4).
Mendelsohn et al does not explicitly teach dual redundant serial buses linking the same buttons to the control unit.
Fanson explicitly teaches a data communication system incorporating a primary serial bus and a redundant serial bus linking communication terminals. (See the abstract and Fig. 1, Primary bus 20 and Redundant bus 30). Fanson further describes that in event of a communication failure in the primary bus; the redundant bus will be used (see col. 4 lines 15-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the serial network structure of Mendelsohn et al by incorporating the dual-bus of Fanson, since the combination would replace a single-point failure link with a highly reliable dual redundant network ensuring that if a communication fault occurs on a first serial bus, the elevator’s control unit maintains communication with the plurality of buttons over the redundant serial bus to maintain passenger safety and elevator operation.
Claims 2 and 9, Mendelsohn et al teaches in fig. 4 and corresponding description that a plurality of buttons such as 66-69 include communication modules that connect with a data bus, wherein the data bus connects to different controllers, remote stations, and master controllers.
Claims 3 and 10, Mendelsohn et al describes that when a passenger presses either a hall button (16) on a panel next to an elevator car or buttons 18 on a car operating panel 20, he/she sends a request (go to a specific floor) to an elevator controller 156, and the elevator controller 156 associates the received information with either a hall button 16 or/and an operating panel of a specific elevator car 10.
Claims 4 and 11, Mendelsohn et al describes various elevator operation requests which can originate from a hall button 16 or a button 18 from inside an elevator car 10, wherein a car controller 156 receives said operation requests through a data bus (such as data bus 70) and identifies where the operation request is coming from.
Claim 5, Mendelsohn et al describes in fig. 7 that the car controllers communicate with remote-controlled devices such as group controllers.
Claim 6, Mendelsohn et al points out and fig. 7 and corresponding description that single-wire lines are used between each of the different passenger requests and remote stations 64. Other preferred communication protocols are considered a design choice, and they would depend on the intended use of the communication system in the elevator apparatus.
Claim 8, Mendelsohn et al describes a car operating panel 20 having a plurality of buttons 18 and other up/down buttons for selecting the desired direction of movement of elevator car 10. As described above in the rejection of claim 6, , Mendelsohn et al teaches the use of serial format to a transmission line (data bus) 70, wherein each of the different buttons have a dedicated line to the car controller. Other preferred communication protocols are considered a design choice, and they would depend on the intended use of the communication system in the elevator apparatus.
Claim 12, Mendelsohn et al teaches a car operating panel 20 comprising a plurality of buttons associated with different operating functions of an elevator system such as desired building floor, direction of movement, or special requests (fire service) as described for example in col. 4 lines16-19).
Claim 13, Mendelsohn et al describes state 57 which is used to send test signals for the system components. Specific protocols used by the elevator system to check the status of each system component is considered a design choice and it would depend on the specific elevator controller.
Claim 14, as described before Mendelsohn et al describes the use hall call button 16 which send a light to a lamp 24 when activated; the type of light (flashing or continuous/steady light) is considered a design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art documents have been listed in the attached PTO-892; these documents describe redundant serial communication buses.
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
