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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2012/0181118 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Choi discloses a method of retrofitting a cab of a transportation system, the method comprising:
mounting a standalone device to a cab body in an interior thereof (e.g. Fig. 1 & 6 & [0013]: acceleration sensor 10 is mounted within an elevator, and the running information display device as shown in Fig. 1 & 6 is installed inside the elevator);
driving the cab body to travel between first and second locations (e.g. [0011]);
determining a location of the cab body from sensing results of a sensor of the standalone device (e.g. Figs. 5-6 & [0092-0111]); and
controlling a speaker (e.g. Fig. 6: 242) of the standalone device to audibilize a description of the location (e.g. [0015, 0092, 0110, 0111]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-5, 7-14, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (US 2018/0273345 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2012/0181118 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rao discloses a standalone device (e.g. Fig. 1A: system 100 including elements 116, 108, 106, 114, 112, 110, 104) for use with a cab of a transportation system (e.g. Fig. 1A: elevator 102), the standalone device comprising:
a mounting by which the standalone device is attachable to a cab body in an interior thereof (e.g. [0033, 0035]: all the components of the system 100 are mounted in a single wall panel of the elevator as shown in Fig. 1A; thus, inherently disclosed mounting for the components), the cab body being configured to travel between first and second locations and to accommodate at least one person in the interior while traveling (e.g. Fig. 1A: 102);
a sensor configured to sense a location of the cab body (e.g. [0032]: sensor to provide general state of the elevator cab; [0037]: display 108 capable of displaying location of the elevator in the building; thus, implies sensors for sensing or receiving information related to location of the elevator);
a speaker (e.g. Fig. 1A: 110); and
a processing board (e.g. Fig. 1A: 116) operably coupled to the sensor and the speaker (e.g. Fig. 1A).
Rao discloses additional sensor for detecting elevator general state (e.g. position of an elevator is broadly considered as one of the general state of an elevator) is included (e.g. [0032]) and a display is capable of displaying elevator location (e.g. [0037]).
Rao fails to disclose, but Choi teaches a device (e.g. Fig. 1 & 6 & [0013]: acceleration sensor 10 is mounted within an elevator, and the running information display device as shown in Fig. 1 & 6 is installed inside the elevator) comprising:
a sensor (e.g. Figs. 1 & 6: 10) configured to sense a location of the cab body (e.g. [0110, 0111]); and
the processing board (e.g. Fig. 6: 200) being configured to determine the location of the cab body from sensing results of the sensor (e.g. Fig. 6: 10) and to control the speaker (e.g. Fig. 6: 242) to audibilize a description of the location to the persons (e.g. [0015, 0110, 0111]).
Rao silence on how the elevator position is determined and only display (but not announce) the determined elevator position.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Rao with the teachings of Choi, since accelerometer is known in the art device for determining object position, and the modification of Rao in view of Choi is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another (replacing silenced method of elevator position determination of Rao with accelerometer as taught by Choi).
Regarding claim 9, Rao discloses a transportation system cab (e.g. Fig. 1A: 102), comprising:
a cab body defining an interior (e.g. Fig. 1A) and configured to travel between first and second locations and to accommodate one or more person in the interior while traveling (e.g. Fig. 1A: inherent function of an elevator);
a standalone device (e.g. Fig. 1A: system 100 including elements 116, 108, 106, 114, 112, 110, 104), comprising: a mounting by which the standalone device is attachable to the cab body in the interior (e.g. [0033, 0035]: all the components of the system 100 are mounted in a single wall panel of the elevator as shown in Fig. 1A; thus, inherently disclosed mounting for the components);
a sensor configured to sense a location of the cab body (e.g. [0032]: sensor to provide general state of the elevator cab; [0037]: display 108 capable of displaying location of the elevator in the building; thus, implies sensors for sensing or receiving information related to location of the elevator);
a speaker (e.g. Fig. 1A: 110); and
a processing board (e.g. Fig. 1A: 116) operably coupled to the sensor and the speaker (e.g. Fig. 1A).
Rao discloses additional sensor for detecting elevator general state (e.g. position of an elevator is broadly considered as one of the general state of an elevator) is included (e.g. [0032]) and a display is capable of displaying elevator location (e.g. [0037]).
Rao fails to disclose, but Choi teaches a device (e.g. Fig. 1 & 6 & [0013]: acceleration sensor 10 is mounted within an elevator, and the running information display device as shown in Fig. 1 & 6 is installed inside the elevator) comprising:
a sensor (e.g. Figs. 1 & 6: 10) configured to sense a location of the cab body (e.g. [0110, 0111]); and
the processing board (e.g. Fig. 6: 200) being configured to determine the location of the cab body from sensing results of the sensor (e.g. Fig. 6: 10) and to control the speaker (e.g. Fig. 6: 242) to audibilize a description of the location to the persons (e.g. [0015, 0092, 0110, 0111]).
Rao silence on how the elevator position is determined and only display (but not announce) the determined elevator position.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Rao with the teachings of Choi, since accelerometer is known in the art device for determining object position, and the modification of Rao in view of Choi is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another (replacing silenced method of elevator position determination of Rao with accelerometer as taught by Choi).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, both Rao and Choi in combination discloses electronic components including the claimed the sensor, the speaker and the processing board (see rejections of claims 1 and 9).
Although Rao and Choi do not explicitly disclose power source for these components, power source is inherently disclosed. Those claimed electronic components would not function without power source for powering their operation.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Choi teaches an interface configured to interface with an operator at least for initiating a calibration operation (e.g. Fig. 1: 80).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Choi teaches the calibration operation comprises positional calibration, numbering scheme setup and options setup (e.g. Fig. 1: 80).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Choi teaches the calibration operation is automated (since calibration operation is initiated by operator in view of limitations recited in claims 3 and 12, the “automated” is broadly interpreted as being done by inputting command to processor. Thus, Choi in [0056] teaches range of floor of the elevator is being set by running range setting unit, and the operation of the elevator is automated based on the setting).
Regarding claims 7 and 16 and 20, Choi teaches the description comprises at least one or more of a numeric announcement, a descriptive announcement and an instructional announcement (e.g. [0015, 0092, 0110, 0111]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17 and 20, Rao and Choi in combination discloses a processor configured to generate the description via a machine learning algorithm (e.g. Rao [0052]: responses are provided based on machine learning; Choi [0015, 0092, 0110, 0111]: response are text or audible).
Regarding claim 10, Rao discloses the cab body is at least one of an elevator car configured to travel between floors of a building in a hoistway (e.g. Fig. 1A), a cable car configured to travel laterally along a line and a tram configured to travel laterally along tracks.
Claim(s) 6 and15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (US 2018/0273345 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2012/0181118 A1) as applied to claims 3 and 12 above, and further in view of Sarjanen et al. (US 2014/0174861 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Rao and Choi in combination fails to disclose, but Sarjanen teaches executing a calibration operation (e.g. [0019]).
Choi teaches all the calibration operation steps in the normal operation (e.g. see rejections of claims 1 and 9). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to generate an audibilization of the description (e.g. provide elevator location information when elevator stops at destination) during calibration operation since the audibilization of the description is triggered by the stop of the elevator.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Choi with the teachings of Sarjanen to perform a calibration operation to accurately determine run time of the elevator to optimize control and allocation of the elevator (e.g. Sarjanen: [0003]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2012/0181118 A1) in view of Sarjanen et al. (US 2014/0174861 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Choi fails to disclose, but Sarjanen teaches executing a calibration operation (e.g. [0019]).
Choi discloses all the calibration operation steps in the normal operation. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to generate an audibilization of the description (e.g. provide elevator location information when elevator stops at destination) during calibration operation since the audibilization of the description is triggered by the stop of the elevator.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Choi with the teachings of Sarjanen to perform a calibration operation to accurately determine run time of the elevator to optimize control and allocation of the elevator (e.g. Sarjanen: [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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.
/KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights