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 § 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.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tauber et al. United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0208429.
As per claim 1, Tauber teaches an apparatus for scheduling elevator transport in an elevator system comprising one or more elevators, the apparatus configured to: obtain, for a plurality of passengers [calls (pp 0006)], a respective transport request for elevator transport using said one or more elevators, the transport request comprising at least respective indications of an origin floor, a destination floor and a requested transport time window [departure and destination floor and time frame (pp0005-0006, pp 0042)];
derive, in dependence of said plurality of transport requests, a transport schedule that includes a respective transport allocation for each of said plurality of passengers, wherein a transport allocation for a passenger is derived in accordance with the requested transport time window indicated for the respective passenger, in view of transport allocations derived for other passengers and in view of a transport capacity of said one or more elevators and wherein the transport allocation for a passenger comprises at least a scheduled transport time for the respective passenger [call allocation system (pp 0026-0027; pp 0043)]; and
operate said one or more elevators in accordance with the derived transport schedule [elevator serves the call (pp 0023, pp 0027, pp 0042)], wherein the apparatus is configured to
derive the transport allocation for a passenger via deriving the scheduled transport time for the respective passenger via application of one or more predefined scheduling rules arranged to allocate one of non-allocated places in those ones of said one or more elevators that are available for transporting the respective passenger in accordance with the transport request obtained for the respective passenger, wherein the one or more elevators under consideration by the one or more scheduling rules are selected in dependence of time and/or load of the elevator system [load data (pp 0006, 0009, 0024); handling load ((pp 0007-0009); excludes used (0110-0111); allocation (pp 0027, 0042, 0045); optimize usage of elevator car space based on time frame or weight (pp 0023-0025)].
Claims 13-15 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, mutatis mutandis, as they do not further limit or define over the claim.
As per claim 2, Tauber teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, configured to derive the transport allocation for a passenger via deriving the scheduled transport time for the respective passenger at least in dependence of the origin floor, the destination floor and the requested transport time window indicated for the respective passenger [call allocation system based on departure floor, destination floor and time frame (pp 0042)].
As per claim 3, Tauber the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transport allocation for a passenger further comprises an identification of an elevator of said one or more elevators assigned for the respective passenger, and wherein the apparatus is configured to derive the transport allocation via assigning one of said one or more elevators for transporting the respective passenger at least in dependence of the origin floor, the destination floor and the requested transport time window indicated for the respective passenger [allocate based on departure floor, destination floor, load data and time frame (pp 0022-0023)].
As per claim 4, Tauber teaches the apparatus according claim1,wherein at least one of the following applies: said one or more predefined scheduling rules are arranged for distributing transport allocations evenly over time in consideration of the respective transport time windows indicated in said plurality of transport requests [excluding part of time frame and space and/or weight (pp 0010-0011); call allocation handled smoothly (0011, 0027, 0042, 0046)]; and
said one or more predefined scheduling rules are arranged for allocating, for the respective passenger, one of said non-allocated places within the requested transport time window such that the number of non-allocated places across the one or more elevators over the transport time window indicated for the respective passenger remains as uniform as possible [excluding part of time frame and space and/or weight (pp 0010-0011); call allocation handled smoothly (0011-0013, 0027, 0042, 0046)];
As per claim 5, Tauber teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein said one or more predefined scheduling rules are arranged for distributing transport allocations over time such that the number of said non-allocated places across the one or more elevators over time remains as uniform as possible [serving load call within first time frame in a smooth manner (pp 0010-0011, 0013).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claims 3-4 as they do not further limit or define over the claims.
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 6-7, 11-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tauber et al. United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0208429 in view of Kannan et al. United States Patent Application Publication No. 20190308844.
As per claim 6, Tauber teaches the apparatus according claim 1. Tauber does not explicitly teach wherein said one or more predefined scheduling rules are arranged for minimizing the number of additional stops introduced in the elevator system in consideration of the respective origin floors, the respective destination floors and the respective transport time windows indicated in said plurality of transport requests.
However, in analogous art, Kannan teaches wherein said one or more predefined scheduling rules are arranged for minimizing the number of additional stops introduced in the elevator system in consideration of the respective origin floors, the respective destination floors and the respective transport time windows indicated in said plurality of transport requests [schedule created to optimize scheduled stops (pp 0039-0040)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optimized schedule of Tauber with the optimized schedule of Kannan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to further optimize the use of the elevators and reduce wait times.
As per claim 7, Tauber teaches the apparatus claim 1. Tauber does not explicitly teach wherein said one or more predefined scheduling rules are arranged for allocating, for the respective passenger, one of said non-allocated places within the requested transport time window such that the number of additional stops introduced in the elevator system is minimized in consideration of the origin floor and the destination floor indicated in the respective transport requests.
However, in analogous art, Kannan teaches wherein said one or more predefined scheduling rules are arranged for allocating, for the respective passenger, one of said non-allocated places within the requested transport time window such that the number of additional stops introduced in the elevator system is minimized in consideration of the origin floor and the destination floor indicated in the respective transport requests [schedule created to optimize scheduled stops (pp 0039-0040)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optimized schedule of Tauber with the optimized schedule of Kannan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to further optimize the use of the elevators and reduce wait times.
As per claim 11, Tauber teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Tauber does not explicitly teach wherein the apparatus is configured to cancel a transport allocation derived for a passenger in response to not having registered presence of said passenger in a space for accessing the one or more elevators by a predefined time margin before the scheduled transport time of said respective passenger.
However, in analogous art, Kannan teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to cancel a transport allocation derived for a passenger in response to not having registered presence of said passenger in a space for accessing the one or more elevators by a predefined time margin before the scheduled transport time of said respective passenger [determine if user left waiting area (pp 0022-0023, 0027, 0030-0032); cancel request based on location (pp 0033)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optimized schedule of Tauber with the cancelling allocation of Kannan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to further optimize the use of the elevators and reduce wait times.
As per claim 12, Tauber in view of Kannan teach the apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the apparatus is configured to: track the location of a user device of said passenger; and cancel the transport allocation derived for said passenger in response to not having detected presence of said user device in the space for accessing the one or more elevators by the predefined time margin before the scheduled transport time of said respective passenger [user’s mobile device transmits user location information (pp 0027); cancel request based on location (pp 0033)].
Claims 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claims 6-7 as they do not further limit or define over the claims.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tauber et al. United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0208429 in view of Zhao et al. United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0368732.
As per claim 8, Tauber teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Tauber does not explicitly teach wherein said plurality of transport request further comprise a respective indication of one of a plurality of passenger groups into which the respective passenger is assigned, and wherein said one or more predefined scheduling rules are arranged for deriving respective transport allocations for said plurality of transport requests in consideration of the respective passenger groups indicated in said plurality of transport requests.
However, in analogous art, Zhao teaches wherein said plurality of transport request further comprise a respective indication of one of a plurality of passenger groups into which the respective passenger is assigned, and wherein said one or more predefined scheduling rules are arranged for deriving respective transport allocations for said plurality of transport requests in consideration of the respective passenger groups indicated in said plurality of transport requests [group passenger based on age or VIP status including passenger characteristic and body shape information (pp0031-0034)].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optimized schedule of Tauber with the passenger groupings of Zhao. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to further optimize the use of the elevators, door opening and closing times and prioritize serving certain groups and health information can prevent unsafe situations from occurring (pp 0046 0055-0056)]
As per claim 9, Tauber in view of Zhao teaches the apparatus according to claim 8, wherein said plurality of passenger groups comprise two or more passenger groups, where each passenger group represents passengers having a respective status with respect to a predefined medical condition [Zhao: passenger characteristic can include passenger age or body shape, gender or disability or making certain sounds (pp 0031, 0043, 0046, 0055)].
As per claim 10, Tauber in view of Zhao teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein said two or more passenger groups comprise two or more of the following passenger groups: passengers not having suffered from said medical condition; passengers currently suffering from said medical condition; and passengers recovered from said medical condition [passenger specific information can include need of specific riding services such as a senior or disabled with limited or slow mobility or not (pp 0043, 0046), or abnormal sounds – which can be currently suffering medical condition (0055)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UZMA ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Allana L 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.
UZMA . ALAM
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights