DETAILED ACTION
Folio 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 4/10/24. These drawings are approved.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites “the method being executable for when an incident occurs and elevator systems affected by the incident transition to an incident operation mode”, the original specification does not support an elevator system that can react to any possible incident. The original documents also lack a description of all possible parameters that can be sensed by “IoT”. How would information outputted by the “IoT” be analyzed to control operation of the elevator system? The specification only repeats the same method steps recited in the claims without including a complete description of how any of said method steps will be performed.
All pending claims recite an algorithm of operation or a system operating in a particular manner, however the pending claims do not recite how any of the recited method steps could be performed. It seems a conventional computer is merely receiving detected information from an elevator system and outputting a signal based on the analysis the received data.
Claims 1-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It seems the term “portfolio management is used by the claims and detailed description of the invention to mean “management of multiple elevator systems,” while the accepted meaning is “financial strategies.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 1, 9, and 15, there is no clear boundaries for the terms “incident” or “system information” in the claim. Additionally, it is not clear what an “incident operation mode” would include. What is an “application layer”? What operators is applicant referring to? What are first status and second status information? The novel manner in which the recited method steps can be accomplished must be part of the claim.
Claims 3 and 10, the claim does not clarify any of the issues described in the rejection of claim 1; the claim still uses unclear/indefinite terms such as “incident”. Additionally, only reference characters can be enclosed within a parenthesis; it is unclear whether the enclosed information is part of the claim. Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and it does not clarify any of the unclear terms used in claim 9.
Claim 4, how is “the output” generated in a cloud computing environment?
Claims 5 and 11, how is the output generated based on the analysis of system information?
Claims 8 and 14, claim 8 depends from claim 1 and uses the same unclear terms. Correction is required. Claim 14 depends from claim 11 and includes the same unclear terms.
Claim 15, the system claims includes similar issues as described above in the rejections of method claims 1 and 11.
Claim 17 has similar issues as described above in the rejection of claims 3 and 10.
Claim 20 has similar issues as recited above in the rejection of claims 8/14 above.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of a organizing a human activity without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the basic steps of receiving data, analyzing said data, and generating an output based on the analyzed data. The claims do not recite a specific technical solution for either the computer algorithm or the elevator system. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited algorithm is performed using conventional digital components without reciting any improvement to said digital components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the hardware and software components used to execute the recite method of operation are conventional computer network components performing their well-known functions. Limiting an abstract idea to a specific field, elevator systems, or using generic computer tools does not convert the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US Publication 2023/0106054).
All the claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101, 112a, and 112b. The pending claims do not recite the manner in which any of the listed methos steps can possibly be accomplished. Prior art has been applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner.
He teaches an Internet-of-Things device for on-site earthquake managing process comprising: an earthquake early warning device(EEW) 10 integrated with a motion sensor 14, a computer 12, an ADC 16, an alarm using buzzer 20 or send out text messages to local networks, and a Wi-Fi connection, wherein the device detects earthquakes periodically (during normal operation of the system the device is being used in or during a series of operating tests as described in paragraphs 0059-0060), issues alerts, is operated automatically, and manages using a smartphone (see for example the description given in paragraphs 0049 and 0050). The text messages can be driven, for example by an API (application program interfaces) and can be sent to a plurality of users, see paragraph 0057. The IoTs and EEW device have real-time communication among themselves and the detected data can be processed by both an edge network and a cloud computing environment (see for example paragraph 0071). Additionally, the EEW device can be used to automatically control an elevator system as described in paragraph 0073).
Although, He teaches the use of his earthquake early warning device in elevator systems, he does not describe the detected data also being related to other components of elevator system such as landing information, door position, or elevator operating mode.
However, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the device described by He with other detected data from different components of the elevator system, since as He describes his invention can easily be adapted with a plurality of other sensors (see for example paragraph 0074).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents cited in the attached PTO-892 describe other elevator systems that use Internet-of-Things device to detect elevator operation during emergency situations.
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