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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/22/2024 and 05/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sudo et al. (US 2017/0203938 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Sudo discloses a method (e.g. Fig. 13) and an elevator system (e.g. Fig. 3) configured to be capable of accepting an internal call made by a user operating an elevator operating panel (e.g. Fig. 1: 30A & [0058]) and an external call made from an external apparatus (e.g. Fig. 7: 25 & [0062, 0097]) separate from the elevator operating panel using a communication network (e.g. Fig. 2 & [0119, 0128-0129]) and configured to assign a car to be an arranged-car candidate to the internal call or the external call from among one or more cars (e.g. Figs. 12-15 & [0161]: elevator car allocation),
the elevator system comprising processing circuitry (e.g. Figs. 2-9), the processing circuitry being configured to execute:
an operation condition judgment process for, when the external call is accepted (e.g. Fig. 13: S13, S16), judging whether each of the one or more cars is in an operating state or in a non- operating state (e.g. Fig. 13: S17; Fig. 15: S31, S33, S34; [0161]: when allocating elevator upon receiving allocation request, each elevator car state is elevated);
an attribute judgment process for, when the external call is accepted (e.g. Fig. 13: S13, S16), judging an attribute related to priority of the external apparatus (e.g. Fig. 13: S17—user attribution; Fig. 12: user attribution indicates whether user is able-bodied or wheelchair; broadly interpreting user attribution as related to priority of the mobile device); and
an external call assignment process for, in response to a result of the judgment by the operation condition judgment process, preferentially assigning a car in the non-operating state as the arranged-car candidate over a car in the operating state (e.g. [0161]: elevator car has largest evaluation value is considered as car in non-operating state relative to the allocation request);
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, in the external call assignment process, decide whether or not to assign the car in the operating state as the arranged-car candidate (i.e. elevator car allocation), according to the attribute (e.g. Figs. 12-15: elevator car allocation based on user attribution, e.g. movement time).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Sudo discloses the processing circuitry is configured to, in the external call assignment process, exclude the car in the operating state from becoming the arranged-car candidate e.g. [0161]: elevator car has largest evaluation value is selected and is considered as car in non-operating state relative to the allocation request; thus, other cars are not selected and are considered as in operating state relative to the allocation request).
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) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudo et al. (US 2017/0203938 A1) in view of Kuusinen et al. (US 2019/0177118 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Sudo fails to disclose, but Kuusinen teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to, when the external call has been continuously accepted from the same external apparatus a predetermined number of times or more, execute an external call cancellation process for canceling the acceptance of the external call (e.g. Abstract & [0005-0007]: cancel the new call or the old call when the pending call has not been served; and, receiving a new call before the pending call is served is considered as continuously accepting external call a predetermined number of times).
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 Sudo with the teachings of Kuusinen to update a pending call by cancelling either the new call or the pending call if the pending call has not been served, since it would improve elevator performance by reducing unnecessary stopping or unnecessary travels in case the new call was given by mistake.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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