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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the limitation “a location of a first floor terminal”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “a location of a first floor terminal of the number of floor terminals”. In addition, claim 29 is objected to because of the similar reason. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the limitation “…a first floor terminal by the control unit which actuates the first floor terminal…”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “…a first floor terminal by the control unit, which actuates the first floor terminal…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the limitation “a building” in line 2. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “the building”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 16-35 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.
Regarding claims 16 and 29, the recited limitations in the claims render the claims indefinite because of the following reasons:
“at least one threshold value that is defined for the traffic volume at the first floor terminal” renders claim 16 indefinite because “the traffic volume” does not refer to any other claimed limitation that was previously introduced. It is suggested to remove “the” in front of the limitation;
“defining a desired operating mode of the first floor terminal on the basis of the comparison result and the operating mode in which the control unit actuates the first floor terminal” renders claim 16 indefinite because:
Not clear whether the step of defining is based on “the operating mode”;
Not clear which operating mode “the operating mode” is referring to since the claim never define an operating mode for the first floor terminal, and the claim only generally define one of the at least two operating modes is actuating the floor terminals; and
It is not clear why “the operating mode” is needed to define a desired operating mode (assuming the step of defining is determined on the basis of “the operating mode”). For examination purpose, the limitation is broadly interpreted as if the desired operating mode is defined as the other operating one of at least two operating modes if the current operating mode of the first floor terminal is different from the defined desired operating mode based on the comparison result; thus, the step of defining is basically determined based on the comparison result.
For the same reasons stated for claim 16 above, limitations recited in claim 29 renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 30, the recited limitations fail to clearly define how the “traffic volume” is determined. The recited limitations seem to include three different ways to determine traffic volume without clearly define whether these three different ways are used separately/individually or in combination. And, different terminologies, such as “the local traffic volume”, “the traffic volume”, “a local traffic volume” and/or “a local traffic pattern” are used to define the same claimed subject matter renders the claim indefinite because it causes confusion and/or antecedence basis issues in the claim.
Regarding claims 17-28 and 31-35, these claims are indefinite because they are either directly or indirectly depend on claims 16 and 29.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 23 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bahjat et al. (US 2009/0294221 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 29, Bahjat discloses a method and an elevator system in a building (e.g. Fig. 1), comprising:
at least one elevator car (e.g. Fig. 1: 26-29) that can be moved between floors of a building;
a number of floor terminals that are arranged on the floors, wherein each floor terminal has a screen unit which is configured to generate a user interface (e.g. Figs. 4-5 & [0025]: café floor touch screen implies floor terminal similar to Figs. 4-5 on each floor); and
a control unit (e.g. Fig. 10: 78) communicatively connected to the floor terminals (e.g. Fig. 10: 41, 76), wherein the control unit is configured to:
control the floor terminals in one of at least two operating modes (e.g. Figs. 2-6), wherein the screen unit of each floor terminal generates the user interface with a functional scope dependent on the operating mode, wherein an individual functional scope is defined for each operating mode,
determine a local traffic volume at a location of a first floor terminal actuated in one of the at least two operating modes (e.g. Abstract & [0031]: traffic volume),
compare the local traffic volume with at least one threshold value that is defined for the traffic volume at the first floor terminal in order to generate a comparison result;
define a desired operating mode of the first floor terminal on the basis of the comparison result (e.g. [0022, 0024]: display Fig. 2 during heavy traffic and display Fig. 3 during low traffic) and the operating mode in which the first floor terminal is to be actuated (e.g. inherently disclosed changing from current operating mode to desire operating mode), and
operate the first floor terminal in the defined desired operating mode (e.g. [0022, 0024]).
Regarding claim 23, Bahjat discloses the user interface generated by the screen unit of the first floor terminal with the functional scope depending on the operating mode is further generated depending on the location of the first floor terminal (e.g. Figs. 2-5 & [0025]: different functional scope displayed on different floor display screen).
Regarding claim 28, Bahjat discloses a stored traffic pattern is used to determine the local traffic volume, wherein the traffic pattern is determined from data on previous local traffic volumes as a function of time (e.g. [0031]: time of day implies an identified heavy traffic pattern previously stored corresponding to a particular time of day).
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.
Claim(s) 26-27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahjat et al. (US 2009/0294221 A1) in view of Koba (US 2013/0264150 A1).
Regarding claims 26-27 and 30, Bahjat discloses the control unit is configured to use a stored traffic pattern to determine a local traffic pattern (e.g. [0031]: time of day), wherein the local traffic pattern is determined from data on previous local traffic results as a function of time (e.g. [0031]: time of day implies an identified heavy traffic pattern previously stored corresponding to a particular time of day).
However, Koba teaches a sensor system communicatively connected to the control unit configured to generate sensor signals which are evaluated by the control unit for determining the local traffic volume (e.g. [0022]: car load weighing device), wherein the control unit is configured to evaluate registered elevator calls in order to determine the traffic volume, in particular a local traffic volume (e.g. [0022]: hall calls).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bahjat with the teachings of Koba, since Koba teaches registered elevator calls and/or weight of an elevator are known alternative to determine traffic pattern. Since Bahjat discloses the traffic volume can be determined by monitoring level of traffic or time of day, it would have been obvious to utilize known in the art traffic pattern determination as taught by Koba in invention of Bahjat, since it is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another according to KSR.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-22, 24-25 and 31-35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, 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.
/KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights