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 .
Remarks
In an intention to expedite the prosecution, the Examiner contacted Applicant’s representative, Attorney Jennifer Lacroix, via both phone call and email on 12/15/2025 with a proposed amendment to place the application in condition for allowance. The Applicant’s representative, however, failed to respond to the Examiner’s effort.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments received 10/27/2025 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
PNG
media_image1.png
301
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
90
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reminds to the Applicant that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. See MPEP 2111.01. Moreover, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant is further advised that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
With these principles in mind, the Examiner asserts that the combination of Adifon and Huo set forth in the previous office and duplicated below in this office action does teach or render obvious the invention recited in pending claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11 and 18-20 of the present application.
Specifically, Examiner considers that the recitation of “a floor call station configured to be mounted to a surface at a location within a level of a construction site where a user would be located to call a hoist elevator car” is the only explicit mention of the limitation directly related to the issue in question, while “a level of a construction site” can be any level of a building that is undergone construction/repairing. As such, the recited hoist elevator does not have to be a temporary elevator that is installed on the outer wall of a building, etc. Furthermore, as admitted by the Applicant, the claimed systems “are intended to be used …”. That is, even if Adifon does not mention explicitly such an “intended use”, in view of Huo’s teaching of a floor call station configured to be mounted to a surface at a location within a level of a construction site where a user would be located to call a hoist elevator car, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Adifon’s hoist elevator operation system to a construction elevator floor calling communication system to arrive the claimed invention, as an intended use of the Adifon motivated by Huo.
Further, under the BRI to the claim, “an operator panel installed in the hoist elevator car” encompasses a user interface (commonly known as the Car Operating Panel or COP) inside an elevator cabin/car that lets passengers select floors, control doors (open/close), and access emergency functions like the alarm and phone, acting as the primary control hub for riders to interact with the elevator's movement and features. It is well-known that such a COP houses floor buttons, status indicators, and safety features. In particular, without an enforcement of security feature such as a passcode or key to restrict access to the COP to only authorized individuals, any user/passenger who is riding the elevator car can serve as the Operator to operate the COP, no matter he is a construction worker or not. The pending claims of the present application do not specify exactly how a person is assigned to act as the hoist elevator Operator who is particularly authorized or skilled to operate the COP.
Moreover, except for the specific location of the floor call station, Adifon discloses elevator operation systems including all the limitations as recited in instant claims 1 and 20. Considering that Adifon’s elevator operation systems can be universally applied to virtually every manufacturer's elevator systems (Adifon, Abstract), in view of Huo which is in the same field of endeavor (i.e., digital control of elevator operation), one ordinary skill in the art would conceive and apply Adifon’s teaching of the floor call station to a surface at a location within a level of a construction site where a user would be located to call a hoist elevator car, as an intended use of the Adifon invention. The skilled person should be able to practice such an intended use of known technologies without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. Applicant’s arguments against the Adifon reference are therefore unpersuasive. It has been held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed in the claim mapping set forth in sections 4-7 below in this Office action. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adifon et al. (US 20220048732 A1) in view of Huo et al. (CN 205838237 U).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Adifon discloses a hoist elevator operation system (e.g., Fig. 1.a.1) comprising: a floor call station (24) configured to be mounted to a surface (a wall near hall door 18) at a location where a user would be located to call a hoist elevator car (para. 0042), the floor call station including an up indicator button, a down indicator button, and a floor call station transmitter that transmits a floor call message when a user activates the up indicator button or the down indicator button (para. 0044, 0055), wherein the floor call message includes a called floor number and a direction of travel associated with the call (para. 0044: “The UICD 30 serves to pass appropriate signals (call, target floor, and/or other signals) to the elevator controller 20”; para. 0042: “… display on a display of ICUD 25 the direction of travel and floor location of the elevator car 12 (as well as other information) and/or emit audio signals or speech communications”, by inherency, the floor call message must include a direction of travel associated with the call); a car controller (25) comprising a wireless transceiver (para. 0052), the car controller being installed in a hoist elevator car (12), where the wireless transceiver receives the floor call message from the floor call station (para. 0042); and an operator panel installed in the hoist elevator car and operatively paired to the car controller (see discussion of ICUDs 25 in para. 0042-0045, 0048, 0059), the operator panel including a display (para. 0043: “display on a display of ICUD 25 the direction of travel and floor location of the elevator car 12 (as well as other information) and/or emit audio signals or speech communications”) and a control panel (para. 0053: “The HUFD 24 and the ICUD 25 devices may include a smart reader or other communication systems to interface with the user's mobile device 8”; para. 0059, 0070), wherein the display of the operator panel provides a visual indication of the floor call message (para. 0071, 0073, 0076), including the called floor number and called direction of travel associated with the call (para. 0042: “display on a display of ICUD 25 the direction of travel and floor location of the elevator car 12 (as well as other information) and/or emit audio signals or speech communications”; see also discussion of ICUDs 25 in para. 0043-0045, 0048, 0059).
Adifon does not mention explicitly: said location is within a level of a construction site where a user would be located to call a hoist elevator car.
Huo discloses a floor call station configured to be mounted to a surface at a location within a level of a construction site where a user would be located to call a hoist elevator car (see Abstract and discussion of Fig. 4).
In view of Huo, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Adifon’s hoist elevator operation system to a construction elevator floor calling bidirectional communication system taught by Huo, as an intended use of the Adifon invention. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Adifon discloses: wherein the operator panel includes a graphical user interface that provides the visual indication of the floor call message, and the graphical user interface includes an up call panel and a down call panel (para. 0071, 0073, 0076); wherein the up call panel and the down call panel each include a plurality of floor icons, and each of the plurality of floor icons includes a floor number and a travel direction arrow (para. 0037).
Regarding claim 4, Adifon discloses: wherein the hoist elevator operation system comprises a plurality of floor call stations (24 in Fig. 1.a.1).
Adifon is silent on: wherein the hoist elevator operation system comprises a plurality of hoist elevator cars, each hoist elevator car including a car controller and an operator panel.
The feature in question is considered merely an intended use of Adifon’s hoist elevator operation system to a plurality of hoist elevator cars, each hoist elevator car including a car controller and an operator panel. It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 5, Adifon discloses: wherein each floor call station is configured to transmit the floor call message to each car controller (para. 0044).
Regarding claim 6, Adifon discloses: wherein the wireless transceiver of each car controller is configured to transmit wireless signals to each other car controller (para. 0044).
Regarding claims 8 and 10-11, Adifon discloses: wherein the system further comprises a remote server (e.g., user’s mobile phone 8) and a base station (20 or 30); wherein the remote server sends wireless signals to the car controller and the base station (para. 0042, 0044, 0070); wherein the wireless transceiver of the car controller sends wireless signals to the remote server (para. 0042, 0044, 0070); wherein the hoist elevator operation system comprises a plurality of floor call stations (24) and a plurality of car controllers (e.g., 23, 25, 20/30, etc. Fig. 1.a.1); wherein the operator panel includes a graphical user interface that provides the visual indication of the floor call message, and the graphical user interface includes a go to floor indicator (see discussion for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, Adifon is silent on: wherein the floor call message is cancelled by the car controller of the hoist elevator car that answers the floor call.
Examiner takes official notice that a floor call message is cancelled by the car controller of the hoist elevator car that answers the floor call is a well-understood and/or conventional activity in a hoist elevator operation system. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Adifon discloses: wherein the operator panel comprises a processor and a memory (see discussion of 25 in para. 0042).
Adifon is silent on: wherein each of the plurality of floor icons further includes a call duration timer.
Examiner takes official notice that each of the plurality of floor icons of the up call panel and the down call panel includes a call duration timer is a well-understood and/or conventional activity in a hoist elevator operation system. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Adifon discloses: wherein the floor call station further comprises an emergency button (para. 0085).
6. Claims 3, 7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adifon et al. in view of Huo et al. further in view of LUNDMARK (EP 3663251 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Adifon discloses: wherein the floor call station transmitter transmits the floor call message using wireless signals to the car controller (para. 0042); wherein the wireless transceiver of each car controller within the plurality of car controllers is configured to receive wireless signals from each floor call station and to transmit wireless signals to each other car controller of the plurality of car controllers (para. 0042, 0059).
Adifon does not mention explicitly: said wireless signals are long-range (LoRa) signals or RF signals.
LUNDMARK teaches transmitting long-range (LoRa) signals to each other car controller of the plurality of car controllers (para. 0131, 0133).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adifon’s wireless signals by incorporating LUNDMARK’s LoRa signals to arrive the claimed invention. It has been held that the mere application of a known technique to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 12-13, Adifon does not mention explicitly: wherein the go to floor indicator is modified by the operator panel based on a scheduling message received from the remote server; wherein the remote server comprises remote server logic, the remote server logic including a scheduling (or timeline) module.
LUNDMARK disclose a hoist elevator operation system comprising: a floor call station (para. 0154: a floor call system) including an up indicator button, a down indicator button, and a floor call station transmitter that transmits a floor call message when a user activates the up indicator button or the down indicator button (para. 0154); a car controller comprising a wireless transceiver (106 Fig. 1), where the wireless transceiver receives the floor call message from the floor call station (para. 0128-0129); and an operator panel operatively paired to the car controller including a display and a control panel (para. 0136), wherein the display of the operator panel provides a visual indication associated with the floor call message (para. 0026, 0136, 0167); wherein the operator panel includes a graphical user interface that provides the visual indication associated with the floor call message, and the graphical user interface includes a go to floor indicator (para. 0026, 0136, 0167); wherein the go to floor indicator is modified by the operator panel based on a scheduling message received from a remote server (para. 0059, 0065, 0077-0078, 0080); wherein the remote server comprises remote server logic, the remote server logic including a scheduling (or timeline) module (para. 0024, 0079-0080).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adifon’s operator panel and the remote server as taught by LUNDMARK to arrive the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of such a combination were predictable for percussion electronic device since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
7. Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adifon et al. in view of Huo et al. further in view of Takeuchi.
Regarding claims 14-17, Adifon discloses: wherein the operator panel includes a graphical user interface that provides the visual indication associated with the floor call message (para. 0071, 0073, 0076).
Adifon is silent on: the graphical user interface includes a plurality of floor icons, each floor icon having at least two operating states; wherein a first operating state of each floor icon is a selected state, and a second operating state of each floor icon is an unselected state; wherein each floor icon further has a third operating state, and the third operating state is a current floor state; wherein the control panel is built into the display in the form of a touchscreen.
Takeuchi teaches: an operator panel includes a graphical user interface (a touch panel operated by a user) that provides the visual indication associated with the floor call message, the graphical user interface includes a plurality of floor icons, each floor icon having at least two operating states, wherein a first operating state of each floor icon is a selected state, and a second operating state of each floor icon is an unselected state, wherein each floor icon further has a third operating state, and the third operating state is a current floor state (col. 3, lines 44-62); wherein a control panel is built into the display in the form of a touchscreen (col. 3, lines 44-62).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Takeuchi’s teaching of the graphical user interface into Adifon to arrive the claimed invention thus improving the feasibility and applicability of the Adifon invention.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANCHUN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5981. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached on (571)270-7938. 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.
/JIANCHUN QIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights