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 12/15/2023 and 02/24/2026 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 § 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 1-13 and 15-21 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the limitation “elevator groups being formed based on a load unbalance of the elevators” renders the claims indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the limitation is unclear.
The meaning of “load unbalance” is unclear in the claims. Does it mean load/weight of an elevator of the elevators being unbalance/different from other elevators, or does it mean grouping elevators having the same or different/unbalance load together? Therefore, the claims fail to define the scope or meaning of the claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19-21, the limitation “matching information indicative of a weight of the evaluated number of passengers with an information on the load unbalance of the elevators” renders the claims indefinite.
First, the claims fail to clearly define how does “weight of the evaluated number of passengers” is determined; and, assuming “load unbalance of the elevators” refer to weight of elevators, since the claimed limitation requires “matching” the weight of the passengers with “information on the load unbalance of the elevators”, how does weight of elevators is determined.
Second, the meaning of “load unbalance of the elevators” is unclear (see rejections of claims 1 and 8 above).
Third, assuming “load unbalance of the elevators” refer to weight of elevators, since the claimed limitation requires “matching” the weight of the passengers with “information on the load unbalance of the elevators”, it is unclear whether:
1) elevator group having the same weight as the weight of passengers will be selected or elevator group having different weight will be selected; and, 2) “matching” means “the same” or within the range. Thus, the scope of the claims are unclear.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the limitation “a load unbalance minimizing a difference in the comparison of information indicative of a weight of the evaluated number of passengers with the information on the load unbalance of the elevators” renders the claims indefinite.
First, not clear whether “a load unbalance” refers to “load unbalance” previously introduced in the claims; and
Second, “load unbalance” not clearly defined in the claims.
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) 1-4, 7-11 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thangavelu (US 5,750,946).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15-16, Thangavelu discloses a method, a system (e.g. col 2 lines 35-38: system and method), a computer program (e.g. col 6 lines 9-27) embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium, and an apparatus (e.g. Fig. 2) for allocating an elevator in an elevator system to provide service, the elevator system comprising a number of elevator groups (e.g. col 7 line 64 to col 8 line 9: some assigned to lobby and some for other floors implies at least 2 groups), each group comprising a number of elevators (e.g. Fig. 2: elevator 100), the elevator groups being formed based on a load unbalance of the elevators (e.g. col 8 lines 10-34: arrival time to the lobby take into account how far the elevator needs to be traveled; thus, the work load of elevators is used to determine which elevator is being assigned to the group for serving the lobby),
the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (e.g. Fig. 115); and
at least one memory (e.g. Fig. 114) including computer program code;
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
detect a number of received service calls in a predefined time window (e.g. col 10 lines 4-9), the detected service calls being indicative on that service is requested to a floor (e.g. lobby);
evaluate a number of passengers requesting service based on the received number of service calls in the predefined time window (e.g. col 10 lines 4-9);
select an elevator group (e.g. col 8 lines 10-34) among the plurality of the elevator groups to serve the floor (e.g. lobby), the elevator group being selected based on the evaluated number of passengers requesting service (e.g. col 10 20-67: assign elevators based on prediction, and prediction is based passenger count corresponding to received hall call); and
allocate an elevator belonging to the selected elevator group to the floor to provide the service (e.g. col 8 lines 10-34).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Thangavelu discloses the evaluation of the number of passengers requesting the service by: grouping the received service calls based on a detection that the received service calls comprise at least a common portion in a travel path departing from the floor (e.g. col 8 lines 10-34: lobby).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Thangavelu discloses a decision of the common portion of the travel path between the service calls based on a direction of a travel indicated in the service calls (e.g. col 8 lines 10-34: lobby).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17-18, Thangavelu discloses the evaluation of the number of passengers requesting the service by summing up the number of passengers indicated by the number of service calls (e.g. col 10 lines 4-9: passenger count).
Regarding claim 7, Thangavelu discloses generating an indication informing at least the selected elevator group through a user interface the service call is received (e.g. col 15 lines 1-3: hall call button lights).
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