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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control unit”, “a user interface unit”, “a first access point unit”, ‘a second access point unit” in claims 1, 22 and 27, “a car control unit”, “a main control unit” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 14-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahlke US 11,274,016 B2 in a view of Kuenzi et al. US 2020/0165099 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Pahlke discloses
An elevator system (fig. 1, item 2) having an elevator car (item 6), the elevator system comprising: a control unit (network structure in fig. 2) that moves with the elevator car (column 3, lines 25-37, column 4, lines 4-14); a user interface unit (item 7b) being a car operating panel within the elevator car, the car operating panel including an interface configured for user interaction (column 3, lines 54-64, column 4, lines 4-14); a first wireless network having a first access point unit (see annotated fig. below) configured as an access point of the first wireless network, wherein the first access point unit and the user interface unit are configured to communicate within the first wireless network (column 6, lines 40-58); a second wireless network having a second access point unit (see annotated fig. below) included in the control unit and configured as an access point of the second wireless network, wherein the first access point unit and the user interface unit are configured to send and receive an alarm signal therebetween within the first wireless network independent of the control unit (column 6, lines 47-58. The first wireless network and the control unit are two different entities as shown in fig. 2); and wherein the control unit is communicatively connected to the first access point unit to communicate with the user interface unit (column 5, lines 48-58).
PNG
media_image1.png
407
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pahlke does not disclose but Kuenzi et al. disclose wherein the second access point unit (fig. 3 shows the second access point on item 208) is configured to communicate with a plurality of client devices within the second wireless network, the plurality of client devices including at least one of an elevator car door controller, a landing door controller, and a landing operating panel [0036, 0037].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the second access point unit to configure to communicate with a plurality of client devices within the second wireless network as disclosed by Kuenzi in Pahlke’s teachings to detect status parameter of a door. (See Kuenzi’s paragraph 0003)
Regarding claim 22, a combination of Pahlke and Kuenzi discloses
A method of operating an elevator system, the elevator system including an elevator car, a control unit that moves with the elevator car, a user interface unit being a car operating panel within the elevator car, the car operating panel including an interface configured for user interaction, and a first access point unit; the method comprising the steps of: connecting the first access point unit and the user interface unit in a first wireless network; connecting the control unit with at least a first client device of a plurality of client devices in a second wireless network, wherein the control unit includes a second access point unit of the second wireless network and the plurality of client devices includes at least one of an elevator car door controller, a landing door controller and a landing operating panel; recording (sensing) a user input signal representing a user input using the user interface unit (column 6, lines 47-58); and transmitting the user input signal within the first wireless network from the user interface unit to the first access point unit and from the first access point unit to the control unit (see claim 14 rejection for detail).
Regarding claim 27, a combination of Pahlke and Kuenzi discloses
An elevator system having an elevator car movable in an elevator shaft (Pahlke’s fig. 1, item 4. See column 3, lines 25-53), the elevator system comprising: a control unit that moves with the elevator car in the elevator shaft; a user interface unit being a car operating panel within the elevator car, the car operating panel including an interface configured for user interaction; a first wireless network having a first access point unit configured as an access point of the first wireless network, the first access point unit being stationary adjacent a top of the elevator shaft (see column 4, lines 15-20. Item 20 is attached to item 18), wherein the first access point unit and the user interface unit are configured to communicate within the first wireless network; a second wireless network having a second access point unit included in the control unit and configured as an access point of the second wireless network, wherein the second access point unit is configured to communicate with a plurality of client devices within the second wireless network, the plurality of client devices including at least one of an elevator car door controller, a landing door controller, and a landing operating panel; wherein the first access point unit and the user interface unit are configured to send and receive an alarm signal therebetween within the first wireless network independent of the control unit; and wherein the control unit is communicatively connected to the first access point unit to communicate with the user interface unit (see claim 14 rejection for detail).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Pahlke discloses
wherein the control unit is configured to communicate within the first wireless network and/or is configured to communicate with the first wireless network over a wired connection (a CAN bus) to the first access point unit (Fig. 2 shows item 10 is coupled to item 20 via a wire. Column 4, lines 39-44).
Regarding claim 16, Kuenzi et al. disclose wherein the plurality of client devices includes at least one landing lantern [0036].
Regarding claim 17, Pahlke discloses
wherein the user interface unit includes an alarm call function, a microphone and/or a loudspeaker (column 4, lines 4-14).
Regarding claim 18, Pahlke discloses
wherein the first access point unit is stationary within the elevator system (column 4, lines 20-28).
Regarding claim 20, Pahlke discloses wherein the first wireless network and the second wireless network operate on different frequency bands or different channels (Fig. 2 shows two different networks).
Regarding claim 19, Pahlke discloses wherein the control unit includes a first radio module transmitting and receiving first information within the first wireless network and/or a second radio module transmitting and receiving second information within the second wireless network (column 4, lines 15-28).
Regarding claim 21, Pahlke discloses wherein the control unit is a car control unit on or within an elevator car and/or the control unit is a main control unit of the elevator system (column 4, lines 20-28).
Regarding claim 23, Pahlke discloses connecting (via a CAN bus) the control unit in the first wireless network (Fig. 2 shows item 10 is coupled to item 20 via a wire. Column 4, lines 39-44).
Regarding claim 24, Pahlke discloses transmitting an alarm signal within the first wireless network (column 6, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 25, Pahlke discloses transmitting a control signal (program and instructions) within the second wireless network (column 5, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 26, Pahlke discloses providing the control unit, the user interface unit and the first access point unit to the elevator system (see claim 14 rejection for detail).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bacellar et al. (US 7,426,981 B2) disclose an elevator wireless communication infrastructure using PICONET modules.
Baumgartner (US 12,577,081 B2) discloses systems and methods for hoist elevator system.
Manes et al. (US 2020/0189877 A1) disclose an elevator system with plural wireless communication paths using different frequencies [0042]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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 on 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights