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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-10 are missing articles before the first words of the claims. For example, in claim 1: “Monitoring method” should be ‘A monitoring method’. 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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-6 are method claims that do not contain any active method steps and are as such indefinite. Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies. For the purpose of examination, the active method steps are being construed from the claimed limitations as best possible.
In claims 1 and 8, it is unclear what constitutes an operating datum in “operation of the motor member as a motor and/or generator”, rendering them indefinite. Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said machine learning phase" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering it indefinite. For the purpose of this action it is assumed that claim 5 depends on claim 4.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “elevating machines”, and the claim also recites “particularly elevators and escalators” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 8 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For this action, the interpretation is limited to elevators. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 7 recites “number and/or the distance travelled by the transport member allocated to each of said ranges”. It is unclear what is meant by number allocated to each of said ranges” and neither the claim nor the specification provide context needed for an assumption by the Examiner, precluding examination of the claim.
Claim 8 recites “- acquisition means of said at least one operating datum of the machine selected from at least one of either ambient temperature, temperature of the motor member or the vibrations of the transport member” it is unclear what the antecedent basis for “said at least one operating datum” is, since claim 8 and claim 1 both previously recite “at least one operating datum”, with the list of alternative, not matching the instant list. This renders claim 8 indefinite. For the purpose of this action, it is assumed that claim 8 is the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 1.
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.
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 –
Claims 1, 2, 3, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryser et al (DE 10 2006 036251. Portions of attached translation are being cited).
Claims 1 and 8: ‘251 discloses a monitoring method for elevating machines, particularly elevators and escalators, provided with: - at least one pulley member (2) which can be activated in rotation around an axis of rotation for the actuation of the machine (3); - motion transmission means (Fig. 1: 3), coupled to the pulley member in a kinematic manner and provided with at least one motor member (necessitated) configured to generate the motion transmitted to the pulley member to activate it in rotation; - at least one flexible traction member (4), which is at least partly wrapped around the pulley member and moved in a sliding manner due to the friction with the latter during the rotation of the latter; - at least one transport member (5), connected to the flexible member and moved due to the sliding of the latter to transport at least one load/passenger between two or more predefined points (landings) as a result of the driving of the machine; - at least one braking member (Page 5 paragraph 7, catch brake), operating on at least one of either the motion transmission means or the pulley member and activated and deactivated when the motor member is deactivated and activated, respectively, to prevent and allow the rotation of the pulley member; characterized by the fact that it comprises: - at least one acquisition phase of at least one operating datum of the machine selected from at least one of ambient temperature, temperature of the motor member, torque delivered by the motor member, operation of the motor member as a motor and/or generator, current and/or voltage supplied to or generated by the motor member (page 5 paragraph 7), the angular distance travelled by the pulley member, the direction of rotation of the pulley member, the load of the transport member, the position of the transport member, the distance travelled by the transport member, the vibration of the transport member and the activation/deactivation of the braking member; - at least one processing phase of at least one status parameter of the machine as a function of one or more of said operating data, said status parameter being indicative of at least one of:- the slip between the flexible member and the pulley member during the rotation of the latter; - the rotation of the pulley member during the activation of the braking member; - the level of degradation of the machine (page 5 paragraph 7, “change in driving ability over time”). Claim 8 is the corresponding apparatus.
With regard to claims 2, 3, claim 1 contains the alternative language
“said status parameter being indicative of at least one of:
- the slip between the flexible member and the pulley member during the rotation of the latter;
- the rotation of the pulley member during the activation of the braking member;
- the level of degradation of the machine”
and is rejected by satisfying the third alternative condition “the level of degradation of the machine”
Once one alternative condition has been met, the entire claim is rejected. Since the third alternative condition is already satisfied, the entire alternative claim limitation is also rejected. As a result, any further claims directed to the first and/or second condition, similarly stand rejected.
Alternative Rejection over 35 U.S.C. §102
Claims 1, 8, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryser et al (DE 10 2006 036251. Portions of attached translation are being cited).
Claims 1 and 8: Monitoring method for elevating machines, particularly elevators and escalators, provided with: - at least one pulley member (2) which can be activated in rotation around an axis of rotation for the actuation of the machine (3); - motion transmission means (Fig. 1: 3), coupled to the pulley member in a kinematic manner and provided with at least one motor member (necessitated) configured to generate the motion transmitted to the pulley member to activate it in rotation; - at least one flexible traction member (4), which is at least partly wrapped around the pulley member and moved in a sliding manner due to the friction with the latter during the rotation of the latter; - at least one transport member (5), connected to the flexible member and moved due to the sliding of the latter to transport at least one load/passenger between two or more predefined points (landings) as a result of the driving of the machine; - at least one braking member (Page 5 paragraph 7, catch brake), operating on at least one of either the motion transmission means or the pulley member and activated and deactivated when the motor member is deactivated and activated, respectively, to prevent and allow the rotation of the pulley member; characterized by the fact that it comprises: - at least one acquisition phase of at least one operating datum of the machine selected from at least one of ambient temperature, temperature of the motor member, torque delivered by the motor member, operation of the motor member as a motor and/or generator, current and/or voltage supplied to or generated by the motor member (page 5 paragraph 7), the angular distance travelled by the pulley member, the direction of rotation of the pulley member, the load of the transport member, the position of the transport member, the distance travelled by the transport member, the vibration of the transport member and the activation/deactivation of the braking member; - at least one processing phase of at least one status parameter of the machine as a function of one or more of said operating data, said status parameter being indicative of at least one of:- the slip between the flexible member and the pulley member during the rotation of the latter (page 5 paragraph 7, “traction between 4 and 2”); - the rotation of the pulley member during the activation of the braking member; - the level of degradation of the machine. Claim 8 is the corresponding apparatus.
With regard to claim 6, claim 1 contains the alternative language
“said status parameter being indicative of at least one of:
- the slip between the flexible member and the pulley member during the rotation of the latter;
- the rotation of the pulley member during the activation of the braking member;
- the level of degradation of the machine”
and is rejected by satisfying the first alternative condition “the slip between the flexible member and the pulley member during the rotation of the latter”
Once one alternative condition has been met, the entire claim is rejected. Since the first alternative condition is already satisfied, the entire alternative claim limitation is also rejected. As a result, any further claims directed to the second and/or third condition, similarly stand rejected.
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 9 and 10 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryser et al (DE10200603625), in view of Official Notice.
Claims 9 and 10: Ryser et al disclose the system according to claim 8, but appear silent to it being characterized by the fact that it comprises at least one containment body, associated with the motor member and adapted to contain inside it at least one of either said acquisition means or said processing means, and that it comprises coupling means of said containment body to the motor member in a removable manner. However, the Examiner tak1es Official Notice that containment bodies/housings are standard in the art of sensors and processors, as are removably affixing the sensors and processors to said housing. Therefore the limitations of claims 9 and 10 would be an obvious choice to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention, for the purpose of protecting the sensors and processors from the environment, and in the case of removable coupling means, for mechanical stability and the ability to maintain/replace the sensors/processors after decoupling them from the housing.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryser et al (DE10200603625), in view of Pakarinen et al (EP 0807084B1).
Claims 4 and 5: Ryser et al teach a method according to claim 1, characterized by the fact that the machine is an elevator, the transport member of which is movable between a plurality of floors, each corresponding to one of said predefined points, but appear silent to it comprising at least one machine learning phase for determining the number of said predefined points and/or the mutual distance between each of said predefined points as a function of at least one of either said distance travelled by the transport member, said angular distance travelled by the pulley member or the direction of rotation of the pulley member, acquired during a plurality of drives of the machine. However, the correspondence between the mutual distance between each of said predefined points as a function of angular distance travelled by the pulley member we known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention. See Pakarinen et al’s claim 10. Therefore calibrating the system via machine learning for this correspondence would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of accurate and precise elevator motion in response to user calls.
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