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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2018 0273346) in view of Official Notice.
Claims 1, 11, 16: Hwang et al disclose a method comprising: detecting, via a video camera [0023], an incident occurring within an elevator [0041]; determining incident type using video analytics [0041]; determining that a floor selection associated with the incident type will place at least one of elevator passengers or people on the selected floor at risk (determining that the ground floor is the safest option for an ill passenger [0042]); automatically modifying elevator workflow execution based on the incident type and risk associated with the floor selection; and sending a security notification indicative of the incident type and the automatic modification of the elevator workflow [0042].
Hwang et al do not explixcitly disclose displaying the floor selection, while modifying the elevator workflow to a different floor. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that displaying the floor selection was standard in elevators at the time of filing of the instant application, to aid passengers in being informed of the destination of the elevator, and one skilled in the art would expect that this display of the selected floor would be prevalent while the workflow was being modified.
With regard to claims 11 and 16, see [0065-0070], which teach a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory containing a set of instructions thereon; and a non-transitory processor readable medium containing a set of instructions thereon.
Claim 2: Hwang et al teach claim 1, but do not explicitly teach automatically modifying the elevator workflow execution based on incident type is further based on a determination of an incident severity. However, [0039] and [0040] teach taking appropriate action and contacting appropriate authorities based on determination of the incident/situation. Therefore, a skilled artisan would expect that these steps are to be based on incident severity, in order to optimize use of resources while still addressing the situation/s.
Claim 3: [0042] discloses automatically directing the elevator to a floor with exits.
Claim 4, 6, 12, 17: [0042] discloses that the security notification is sent to a public safety answering point (PSAP), dispatching security personnel to the different floor.
Claims 10, 15, 20: Hwang et al disclose removing the elevator from service, wherein removing the elevator from service prevents the elevator from responding to additional calls ([0038] shutting down the elevator).
Claims 7-9, 13, 14, 18 and 19: Hwang et al render obvious the method of claim 6/1, but do not explicitly disclose keeping a door of the elevator closed until security personnel have arrived at the different floor, sending at least a portion of a feed from the video camera to a device associated with security personnel, or preventing other elevators from stopping on the different floor. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that these are commonly employed security measures that would have been obvious to a skill artisan before the effective filing sate of the instant invention, in order to best address an emergency security incident within the elevator car.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (US 2018/0273346) in view of Official Notice and further in view of Kavounas (US 20040055828).
Claim 5: Hwang et al render obvious the method of claim 4, but do not explicitly disclose that the PSAP can override the modified elevator workflow execution. However, the ability to override operation of an elevator has long been known in the art, see Kovounas [0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hwang et al with the ability to override the modified elevator workflow execution, in order to allow emergency personnel to best carry out their mission.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M IACOLETTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5789. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am -5 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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571 272 5560. 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.
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights