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 .
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, mental process or data manipulation, without significantly more. In reference to method claims 1-10, the claim(s) recite(s) a functional process including receiving data, processing said data, and transmitting or outputting resulting data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because maintenance technicians commonly diagnose machinery by looking at a problem description(given by a detected parameter or described by an outputted maintenance code or outputted by a computer controlling the machine), checking how the machinery is programmed or configured, and determining new setting to clear any detected errors or abnormalities. Performing these set of method steps with a “predictive system” or generic computer does not change the abstract nature of the recited algorithm. While the claims mention a “conveyance system”, the recited algorithm does not improve or modify the physical machinery. The recited method only manipulates data about the conveyance system and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2: Lack on inventive concept
The claims only recite generic hardware such as “predictive system” and “user interface” performing basic conventional functions: Receiving data, analyzing data to reach a conclusion, and sending said conclusion to a remote screen. The claims vaguely recite what the system does, determining at least one set of updated configuration parameters to correct a problem, but fails to recite how it achieves this. The claims lack a novel algorithm, unique data structure, or technical improvement to the computer’s operation (predictive system).
In reference to apparatus claims 11-18, this set of claims only recite a computer (predictive system) performing the same method steps recited in claims 1-10. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reason given above.
In reference to claim 19, this claim only recite a computer program including the same method of operation recited in claim 1. There, it is rejected for the same reason as stated in reference to claim 1 above.
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.
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 1-19 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. The claims are directed to a method or a system for troubleshooting a problem in a conveyance system with the help of a “predictive system”. However, the specification does not provide any details of how the recited steps are accomplished. The specification does not provide a specific arrangement for processing vast amount of data related to any conveyance system, or a method for improving the internal operation of any machine learning model that solves any particular problem, or how the predictive system is taught to find solutions to performance problems of a conveyance system.
Claims 1-19 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. It is not clear how any of the method steps would be achieved. It seems a user just inputs a description of a problem and some parameters to a conventional “black box” and the “box” magically selects one or more solutions to the problem based on previously stored information, wherein the conveyance system is operated with the selected solution (new configuration parameters) to see if it fixes the problem. How is a particular solution selected by the “predictive system”? There are no boundaries about how many solutions the “predictive system” could suggest. The claims do not recite any limits on the number of trial runs the user can perform before determining the “predictive system” does not have an actual solution to a problem or a reason for said problem. The recited limitations are extremely broad and do not provide data on any human invention. Prior art will be applied to “the invention” as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 11, which is the only “apparatus” claim, failed to recite the components that formed the “system” for providing assisted problem resolution of a conveyance system. The claim only recites a system for providing assisted problem resolution comprising another system (predictive system). Claims 12-18 broadly recite how the “predictive system” will operate; there are no structural components. It seems applicant is trying to include claims from different categories of patent eligible subject matter; however, the recited limitations are all related to a method of operation and nothing else.
In reference to claim 19, it is unclear how any of the recited method steps will be performed.
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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al (US Patent 10981750).
Claim 1, 11, and 19, Song et al teaches a method or a system for providing assisted problem resolution of a conveyance system, the method/system comprises: a predictive system 106 for receiving information related to a problem of a conveyance system 101 based on feedback signals outputted by detectors 107; receiving current configuration parameters of system 101 (elevator); determining at least one set of updated configuration parameters to fix or resolve the detected problem; and sending the updated configuration parameters to a user device 113, see the description of the operating method for example in fig. 2 and corresponding description.
Claims 2 and 12, Song et al describes training the predictive system 106 using one or more elevator specifications, previous issues, and other important feedback information about the operation of the elevator as described for example in col. 6 lines 5-63.
Claims 3 and 13, Song et al teaches for example in col. 6 lines 54-67 and col. 7 lines 14-57 that either a user through interface 113 or system 106 directly receives the impact analysis of the updated configuration parameters to determine whether or not the updated information resolve the detected problem.
Claims 4 and 14, Song et al describes user interface 113 the analysis made by system 106 which determines what the problem is with the elevator 101 based on the information detected by sensor 107.
Claims 5 and 15, Song et al describes system 106 operates elevator system 101 using updated configuration parameters to see if the problem has been resolved, see fig. 4 and corresponding description.
Claims 6 and 16, Song et al describes for example in col. 8 lines 16-24 that updated configuration parameters can be stored in means 440.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18, Song et al describes preventive system 106 receives feedback information from sensors 107.
Claim 9, as described in the rejections of claims 1, 5, and 6, Song et al teaches selecting one of a plurality of updated configuration parameters to operate the elevator, operating the elevator using the updated information, and saving the updated information.
Claim 10, as described before, system 101 is described as an elevator system.
Claim 19, Song et al describes in fig. 5 and corresponding description a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the computer program is implemented by a processor, wherein the computer program comprises instructed related to the method of operation recited in claim 1.
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 describe other methods for troubleshooting a detected problem in a conveyance system using previously stored information.
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 Colo-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