DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is a response to communication submitted on 03/12/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
3. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and extra post solution without integrating it into a practical application Claims 1-20 are ineligible. Claim 1 recites “obtaining data related to movement and/or position of a component of a hoisting system, system of the elevator system; determining from the data at least one characteristic value related to the movement and/or position and determining the type based on pre-defined elevator types of an elevator type classification and the characteristic value”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these data gathering is an extra post solution without integrating it into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea (organizing human activity and mental processes) without significantly more.
Regarding claim, the claim(s) recite(s) “obtaining data related to movement and/or position of a component of a hoisting system, system of the elevator system; determining from the data at least one characteristic value related to the movement and/or position and determining the type based on pre-defined elevator types of an elevator type classification and the characteristic value”. The obtained of the data information related to a movement or position and determining a type on the basis of data manipulation could be performed by mental processes and is merely organizing human activity. However, these limitations constitute mental processes, which are recognized judicial exceptions. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP 2106.04.
The claim further recites additional elements, such as obtaining data related to movement and/or position of a component of a hoisting system, system of the elevator system; determining from the data at least one characteristic value related to the movement and/or position and determining the type based on pre-defined elevator types of an elevator type classification and the characteristic value”, i.e. from the obtained radar data based on, however, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
The claims recite “controlling means” and “a processing unit” that recited at a high level of generality and serves as a generic computing device for implementing the abstract idea. The “processor” is a well-known device for collecting image data, therefore, it is no more than using well-known generic hardware as a tool to collect data. The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply “significantly more”. These all are all mental steps as evident from the disclosure. The grouping of "mathematical concepts" in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, limitation recites a concept that falls into the "mathematical concept"
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improvement to computer architecture); Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (transformation); MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For purposes of office action, these limitations will be interpreted as a sensor or radar taking measurements or data to further remove or filter unwanted signals, interference or ambiguous reading from the measurement data from the sensor or radar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 2 and 4 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.
Claims 2-5, recite “comprising adapting at least one parameter of an elevator monitoring system of the elevator based on the determined type of elevator.”, however, it is unclear, vague and unambiguous not a step for determining a type of elevator, which renders the definition of the scope of claims unclear how this adaptation influences on n pre-defined elevator types.
For purposes of office action, these limitations will be interpreted as determining the type based on pre-defined elevator types from multiple predefined options and a further system value.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the variable speed drive sub-types being scalar control, and vector control, such as field-oriented control or direct torque control; and the direct online sub-types being one-speed or two-speed. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is noted that claim 14 features seem to depend to claim 13 which depends to claim 11, however, claim 14 lacks of consistency since it requests the existence of a variable speed drive AND a direct online. However, claim 13 only recites wherein the movement controlling means include at least one selected from variable speed drive type, direct online type, and hydraulic type, hence only requires one of a variable speed drive type, a direct online type OR a hydraulic type, which in this case the prior arts clearly recite hydraulic type, leading claim 14 to be indefinite and contradictory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
(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.
8. Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shrum et al. (US 20050077117 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses a method for determining a type of elevator (see Figs. 5 and 7, Pars. 19, 27, 77), wherein the method comprises:
obtaining data related to movement and/or position of a component of a hoisting system, system of the elevator system (i.e. acceleration/deceleration rate data, variations in velocity, speed, jerk and run duration. See also sensor 50);
determining from the data at least one characteristic value related to the movement and/or position (implicit as the embedded sensor measures certain physical properties such as the elevator starts to slow down the deceleration rate is monitored. The peak deceleration rate measured of the elevator as it makes a floor-to-floor run. The measurement data is presented on the internal display as an alphanumeric readout that allows an elevator's performance to be easily defined, pars. 21-22, 48, 52).; and
determining the type based on pre-defined elevator types of an elevator type classification and the characteristic value (see Figs. 5 and 7, Pars. 19, 27, 77, i.e. The device should perform the measurements in a manner that eliminates the introduction of human error and opinion. The device should work on any type of elevator and should present the results of the measurements instantly in a format that is recognizable by the common person without the need for specialized training or detailed analysis of a time/amplitude graph).
In regards to claim 2, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses and discloses comprising adapting at least one parameter of an elevator monitoring system of the elevator based on the determined type of elevator (par. 77, i.e. implicit as the peak deceleration rate measured during this period is displayed in the decel g category 26c. At this point in the test sequence a determination is made about the type of elevator that is being tested. If the elevator is found to be a traction type elevator the test sequence moves directly to the stop g test at this time. If the elevator is found to be of a hydraulic type, leveling speed and leveling time measurements are performed. Hence, adapting for example parameters as speed, acceleration that varies depending on the elevator type or model must be executed by the controller to accurately perform secure and efficient control).
In regards to claims 3-4, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses wherein the determination of the type is based on comparison of information in the obtained data related to an event to pre-defined information in the elevator type classification for the same event; AND receiving further data related to movement and/or position of the component; and comparing information obtained from the further data to at least one criterion defined based on the adapted at least one parameter so as to monitor a condition and/or performance of the elevator. (par. 77, i.e. implicit as As the elevator starts to slow down the deceleration rate is monitored. The peak deceleration rate measured during this period is displayed in the decel g category 26c. At this point in the test sequence a determination is made about the type of elevator that is being tested. If the elevator is found to be a traction type elevator the test sequence moves directly to the stop g test at this time. If the elevator is found to be of a hydraulic type, leveling speed and leveling time measurements are performed. Hence, differencing as parameters as speed, acceleration that varies depending on the elevator type or model must be executed by the controller to accurately perform secure and efficient control once the elevator type is known).
In regards to claim 5, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses, comprising generating, by the elevator monitoring system, an alert related to a reduction in the condition and/or performance determined based on the comparison (par. 80, i.e. implicit as During the test sequence various measurement points are compared to internal alert levels. At the appropriate time alert messages flash on the display unit 20 for any test point that is found to be outside of the recommended range. Alert messages include, but are not limited to, Hi, Lo, Fast, or Slow. Thus, this alerts are determined upon prior identification of the elevator type).
In regards to claim 6, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses, wherein the movement and/or position includes at least one selected from the group consisting of: absolute or relative position, speed, velocity, acceleration, deceleration, jerk (pars. 21, 41, 48, 52-53, 67-68, 73).
In regards to claim 7, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses wherein the obtaining comprises determining the data by at least one selected from the group consisting of: an accelerometer, an air pressure sensor, a speed sensor, a velocity sensor, an absolute or relative position measurement sensor, a magnetometer, an optical sensor, such as a camera, a magnetic tape reader, a laser distance measurement, a radar, a sound based distance measurement device, such as based on ultrasound, an incremental encoder, such as a low pulse incremental encoder (see pars. 21, 41, 48, 52-53, 67-68, 73 and 77 and Fig. 6, i.e. sensor 50).
In regards to claim 8, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses wherein the elevator type classification includes reference characteristic value or values for the at least one characteristic value in relation to the pre-defined elevator types (par. 77, i.e. implicit as the peak deceleration rate measured during this period is displayed in the decel g category 26c. At this point in the test sequence a determination is made about the type of elevator that is being tested. If the elevator is found to be a traction type elevator the test sequence moves directly to the stop g test at this time. If the elevator is found to be of a hydraulic type, leveling speed and leveling time measurements are performed. Hence, adapting for example parameters as speed, acceleration that varies depending on the elevator type or model must be executed by the controller to accurately perform secure and efficient control).
In regards to claim 9, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses wherein the predefined elevator types include at least two selected from the group consisting of: roped elevator, hydraulic elevator, linear motor elevator (par. 77).
In regards to claims 10-12, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses wherein the predefined elevator types are defined by at least two elevator characteristics; wherein the at least two elevator characteristics include movement means and movement controlling means; AND wherein the movement means include at least roped type and hydraulic type. (Implicit as s the elevator starts to slow down the deceleration rate is monitored. The peak deceleration rate measured during this period is displayed in the decel g category 26c. At this point in the test sequence a determination is made about the type of elevator that is being tested. If the elevator is found to be a traction type elevator the test sequence moves directly to the stop g test at this time. If the elevator is found to be of a hydraulic type, leveling speed and leveling time measurements are performed. As the elevator enters into a stabilized velocity the leveling timer starts incrementing and the velocity is monitored to determine the average leveling speed during the leveling period. The leveling speed and the leveling time are then displayed in the leveling speed category 22b and the leveling time category 24b. As the elevator decelerates to a stop, the deceleration rate is monitored. The peak rate measured during this period is displayed in the stop g category 26d on the display screen 20).
In regards to claim 13, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses wherein the movement controlling means include at least one selected from variable speed drive type, direct online type, and hydraulic type (implicit as If the elevator is found to be of a hydraulic type, leveling speed and leveling time measurements are performed, par. 77).
In regards to claims 15-16, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses wherein the elevator type classification includes reference characteristic value or values for at least one selected from the group consisting of: duration and/or amplitude of jerk, duration and/or amplitude of acceleration/deceleration, duration and/or amplitude of velocity in steady speed area, speed variation in the steady speed area between consecutive rides between same landings and direction, number and shape of deceleration phases, similarity of drive curves in opposite directions, elevator car vibrations during ride phases, such as speed ripple, or values calculated from the Fourier spectrum of acceleration curve; AND wherein at least one characteristic value relates to at least one selected from the group consisting of: duration and/or amplitude of jerk, duration and/or amplitude of acceleration/deceleration, duration and/or amplitude of velocity in steady speed area, speed variation in the steady speed area between consecutive rides between same landings and direction, number and shape of deceleration phases, similarity of drive curves in opposite directions, elevator car vibrations during ride phases, such as speed ripple, or values calculated from the Fourier spectrum of acceleration curve. (see pars. 21, 41, 48, 52-53, 67-68, 73 and 77 and Figs.5-6, i.e. . Velocities, durations, run time and jerk values are calculated from the filtered movement data, hydraulic elevator performance profile, measurement points derived from this profile, derive the properties for that measurement point. The four derived measurement units are time, rate, velocity and jerk. Time… The filtered movement data is monitored for peak accelerations (peak breakaway, peak acceleration, peak deceleration and peak stop rate) as they occur. This data is reported as a "g" value, with one "g" representing the force of one gravity. Velocities, durations, run time and jerk values are calculated from the filtered movement data, pars. 77, Figs. 5/7).
In regards to claim 17, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses, wherein the component of the hoisting system is one of the following: the elevator car, a hoisting rope, a traction sheave or pulley, an elevator motor (pars. 56-66, i.e. elevator measurement data).
In regards to claim 18, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses elevator monitoring system comprising a processing unit and a memory, the system is configured to execute steps of the method in any one of claims 1 (pars. 41, 45, 49, 79).
In regards to claim 19, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses comprising or being connected to at least one selected from the group consisting of: an accelerometer, an air pressure sensor, a speed sensor, a velocity sensor, an absolute or relative position measurement sensor, a magnetometer, an optical sensor, such as a camera, a magnetic tape reader, a laser distance measurement, a radar, a sound based distance measurement device, such as based on ultrasound, an incremental encoder, such as a low pulse incremental encoder (see pars. 21, 41, 48, 52-53, 67-68, 73 and 77).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrum et al. (US 20050077117 A1) in view of HATANAKA et al. (JP 2019031375 A).
In regards to claims 14 and 20, Shrum shows (Figs. 1-8) and discloses an elevator (implicit as Fig. 1) comprising:
an elevator car movable in an elevator shaft (implicit as elevator car is disclosed, pars. 5, 9, 16, 19, 47) movement means or a movement generation unit, for controlling the movement, wherein the elevator comprises the elevator monitoring system of any one of claims 1
However, Shrum does not explicitly disclose wherein the movement controlling means include sub-types as defined in the following: the variable speed drive sub-types being scalar control, and vector control, such as field-oriented control or direct torque control; and the direct online sub-types being one-speed or two-speed.; and comprising a motor, for providing the movement of the elevator car; and movement controlling means or a motion control unit, such as comprising a frequency converter.
However, the use of variable speed drive, PWM control, as field-oriented control or vector withing an elevator system comprising a motor is not only well-known but a general practice in the field.
As evidence, HATANAKA discloses and shows an elevator system (Figs. 1-7) wherein the movement controlling means include sub-types as defined in the following: the variable speed drive sub-types being scalar control, and vector control (see abstract and Description), such as field-oriented control (i.e. d/q axis control) or direct torque control; and the direct online sub-types being one-speed or two-speed.; and comprising a motor (14), for providing the movement of the elevator car (15); and movement controlling means or a motion control unit, such as comprising a frequency converter.
Hence, given the teaching of HATANAKA it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit/system of Shrum to employ a motor control system comprising a variable speed drive and vector control as optimizes AC motor performance by dynamically adjusting voltage and frequency to match real-time load demands, consequently improving the system accuracy, energy and cost savings and reliability.
Related Prior Arts
11. The following related prior arts made of record are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure to further show the general state of the art and may be applied alone or in combination for rejection of the claims.
SHIOZAKI et al. (CN 110114296 B) discloses An elevator remote operation to restart the system, it is the remote operation of the elevator fault restarting system, wherein the remote operation of the elevator system comprising an elevator control device; drive control to the elevator, and a remote operation resuming device, which is in communication with the elevator control device, the elevator control device re-starts the running of the elevator, to restart the remote operation device with fault know the item database, it is stored with the fault with the elevator response to know details of client-related, and operation restart instruction database, which fault code, the operation of the elevator start mode, control the changing details of the elevator; display/notification details of operating state or fault state of the elevator is associated, a fault signal of the elevator control device when detecting the fault of the elevator, sending the fault code including the elevator and failure position information. the remote operation to restart device when receiving the fault signal according to the included in the fault signal of the fault code and the fault location information, fault handing the know item database.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L CARRASQUILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7879. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday (9am to 5pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE L CARRASQUILLO/Primary Examiner Engineer, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights