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 1-9, 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall et al (US 3,511,342)
Claims 1 and 11: Hall et al disclose (claim 14) an elevator system in a building having a plurality of levels, the system comprising: elevator cars;
a controller (allotter, see Col 11 Line 60) operationally coupled to the elevator cars, and configured to: receive a service request; and render a first determination to select one of the elevator cars to respond to the service request,
wherein the controller is configured to render the first determination from a determination of a travel time to respond to the service request by each of the elevator cars (travel distance and number of stops equate to travel time). Claim 11 is the corresponding method.
Claims 2 and 12: Hall et al disclose (claim 12) that the controller determines the travel time for each of the elevator cars by utilizing one or more travel time factors, including one or more of: a current car position of each of the elevator cars (inherent to travel distance); a number of intermediate stops assigned to each of the elevator cars; and a number of passengers served by each of the elevator cars (loading).
Claims 9 and 19: The controller rendering the first determination from the travel time to respond to the service request; and upon the controller determining that the elevator cars will respond to the service request within a same period of time, the controller being configured to render a second determination to select the one of the elevator cars to respond to the service request; and the controller being configured to render the second determination from the elevator health and usage state, is inherent to the allotter developing an assignment based on the optimum combined capability, wherein the combination includes response time (travel distance, number of stops) and loading of each car (usage); since if the travel time is the same for two cars , the combined capability will hinge on the loading (usage).
Claims 3-8, 13-18: Claims 1 and 11 contain the alternative language “one or more of an elevator health and usage state of the elevator cars, and a travel time to respond to the service request by each of the elevator cars” and is rejected by satisfying the second alternative condition “a travel time to respond to the service request by each of the elevator cars.” Once one alternative condition has been met, the entire claim is rejected. Since the first alternative condition, which is the optical member, is already satisfied, the entire alternative claim limitation is also rejected. As a result, any further claims directed to the first condition, which is an elevator health and usage state of the elevator cars, similarly stand rejected. Therefore, claims 3-8 and 13-18 are rejected due to the second alternative limitation being satisfied.
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 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al (US 3,511,342) in view of Angermann et al (DE 102006046059, portions of attached translation are cited).
Claims 10 and 20: Hall et al disclose the system/method of claim 9/19, but appear silent to: upon the controller determining that the elevator health and usage state are the same for each of the elevator cars, the controller is configured to render a third decision to select the one of the elevator cars to respond to the service request from a round-robin sequence assigned to the elevator cars. However, the round-robin sequence of assigning elevator cars was known in the art (see Angermann et al’s claim 4). It would therefore have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the round-robin sequence when the combined capability of the cars are equal, since it would provide equal usage to otherwise equivalent cars.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M IACOLETTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5789. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am -5 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, Allana 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.
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights