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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/18/23. These drawings are approved.
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.
4. Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of calculating a mathematical function without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) collecting current measurement data and height measurement data during a physical movement of an elevator car to calculate a calibration function parameter. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although claim 16 recites physical components such as an electric motor, an elevator car, and current and height measurement devices, these components are considered generic hardware. Additionally, the recited steps represent routine data collection utilizing conventional components to feed the needed calculations. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they fail to recite or include an inventive concept or improvement to a known algorithm in the operation of elevator systems.
Claims 17-26 only add more steps needed for manipulating the detected data. These claims do no add any tangible physical improvement of any kins that would turn the method of independent claim 16 into a patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 27, a “device” that adds a generic processor to execute an abstract method does not transform an unpatentable abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Claims 28-30 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Objections
5. Applicant is advised that should claim 29 be found allowable, claim 30 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Both claims are designed to protect software stored on a physical tangible medium; they differ in their drafting style. Applicant needs to cancel one of these claims.
Claim Interpretation
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. Claim 16-30 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. Claim 16, lines 4-5, recites a “suspension means” and claim 28 recites the “suspension means” on line 6. However, the original detailed description of the invention does not describe what that “suspension means” could be. The specification only repeats the same term “suspension means”.
8. Claim 16-30 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.
In reference to claim 16, it seems an incomplete method has been recited since the preamble defines the invention as a “method for adapting a counterweight” of an elevator system. However, the recited steps end with steps directed to “calculating at least one parameter of a calibration function” and “calculating an adaptation value” using the calibration value. The claim does not recite how an “adaptation value” is used by the elevator system to modify or adjust equilibrium between the counterweight and the elevator car. It seems the preamble of claims 16 should be amended to recite “a method for calibrating the equilibrium between a counterweight and an elevator car of an elevator system” instead of a “method for adapting a counterweight”. The current preamble makes no sense in relationship to the recited limitations.
Additionally, claim 16 recites the use of a height measuring device for indicating the height of an elevator car relative to a first position or a second position. It seems applicant is referring to a measurement made by an absolute encoder 122 inside an elevator shaft 102, wherein the encoder measures the position of elevator car 104 relative to a first position 112 and a second position 114 inside the elevator shaft. The height of the elevator relative to any point in the elevator shaft would always be the same, the height is not a variable parameter. Applicant needs to amend the claim to recite a “position measuring device” for measuring the position of the elevator car relative to a first predetermined position and a second predetermined position inside the elevator shaft.
Also, claim 16 does not clearly define what he means by “weight”. Is applicant referring to a physical weight placed in an elevator car or is applicant referring to a load (people) since in different parts of the claim applicant describes the run tests being performed with loaded elevators cars.
Finally, claim 16, lines19-22, recite “the height measurement data indicating the height of the elevator car relative to the first position and/or to the second position in a plurality of successive time steps during each of the first through fourth runs” and then in lines 23-24 applicant recites “calculating at least one parameter of a calibration function, the calibration function defining a relationship among the current, the height, and the weight”. Is the “height” value used in the calibration function based on the first position, the second position, or a combination of the data from both positions?
Claim 17, as described in the rejection of claim 16, the height is not the proper parameter in this situation. The claim should be amended to recite the step of calculating a position reference between the first position and the second position. Claim 17 does not answer the question of what “weight” is the invention referring to; is it a physical object or the load on the elevator cars due to people occupying the elevator car? How is “the adaptation value” calculated or estimated based on reference values?
Claim 18, how are the different “average functions” determined? How is the at least one parameter of the calibration function calculated?
Claim 19, how are “output functions” determined? And how is the at least one parameter calculated based on the determined output functions?
Claims 20-25, these claims do not include the specific manner in which any of the recited parameters are either determined or calculated. The claims must recite, with detailed steps or algorithm, what applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 26 only recites the same issues described above in the rejection of claim 16.
Claim 27, is applicant trying to claim a “black box” or a computer performing a method of operation?
Claims 28 recite the same height measuring device as described in claim 16. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons given above in the rejection of claim 16.
Claims 29-30, these claims depend from rejected claim 16.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The attached PTO-892 lists several documents that deal with the task of balancing the wight between the counterweight and the elevator car in an elevator system.
The pending claims, 16-30, have been rejected under 35 USC 101 and 112 (a) and (b). The recited limitations do not provide the manner in which any of the recited steps can be possibly accomplished. Applicant needs to amend the claims to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Prior art cannot be applied to the pending claims, since they do not provide a clear invention.
10. 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
Prosecution Insights