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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an invention relying entirely on data manipulation: collecting data, analyzing said data, and filtering the data without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining a car position indicator, determining a priority indicator, and prioritizing/non-prioritizing communication. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although the claims use structural components such as elevator cars, movable communication devices, and stationary communication devices, these are considered generic components performing their conventional functions. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because merely executing an abstract algorithm in an elevator environment does not automatically transform the recited series of steps into a patent-eligible invention. In order to overcome this rejection, the claims must be directed to a specific technological solution for a physical problem.
The apparatus claims do not include any language that transform the ineligible abstract idea recited in the method claims into a patent eligible invention. The recited generic hardware is not structurally modified or improved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as well as the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The preamble of claim 16 intends to cover any device that simply moves in correlation with the elevator car. However, the specification only enables a device physically fixed “inside or on” the car. The claim improperly captures non-described parallel moving devices. Additionally, the first communication device has been described in the specification as a control unit (paragraph 0052) or as an access point (paragraph 0054); these two structural components a fundamentally different. An access point is not capable of performing any steps related to determining or computing distance calculations or prioritizing data, this requires a processing computer (control unit). The specification fails to provide the algorithm enabling a standard access point to execute these higher-level computational actions, rendering the functional scope of the claim completely unenabled.
In reference to claim 29, the same issues listed above are also found in claim 29. Correction is required.
Claims 16-29 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.
In reference to claim 16, the claim recites generating a priority rank, then using that rank to prioritize or non-prioritized communication between the first communication device and the second communication device. Since, the last step of the claim recites “non-prioritizing” the communication, the claim encompasses doing “nothing” at all with respect to the communication devices. The claim does not specifically point out how the “position indicator” and “priority indicator” are determined. What does a position-dependent communication condition mean? How do you determine “an indicator”? How do you determine a priority rank of the plurality of second communication devices based on a position parameter? Are we just determining the position of an elevator car relative to at least one of the second communication devices? Additionally, the preamble of the claim is directed to a method for operating an elevator system, however the body of the claim does not specify what happens once the position indicator and priority indicator are determined in reference to the operation of the elevator system. How are physical elevator positions translated into priority states? The claim needs to be rewritten to list a clear algorithm for operating an elevator system using the position of an elevator car.
In reference to claim 17, what is packet-based communication network?
In reference to claim 18, the claim relies on the subjective term “perceived distance”, The term “perceived” is a non-mathematical term, the claim does not differentiate between an actual distance calculation and any other form of “estimation” of the distance.
In reference to claim 19, if we take the information from claim 16 which claim 19 depends from, are we just specifying that the determined elevator car position would be represented in any kind of form (binary or continues)? How are priority indicators being relative to the movement direction of the first communication device and an associated second communication device?
In reference to claim 24, how is the direction indicator derived from two or more values of the car position indicator? The claim must particularly point out the manner in which the recited limitation can be accomplished.
In reference to claim 29, this apparatus claim includes similar issues described in the rejection of claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 16-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsuka et al (US Patent 9809419).
The pending claims have been rejected under 35 USC 101, 112(a), and 112(b). The claimed language is considered vague and unclear. Prior art has been applied to the invention as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 16 and 29, Otsuka et al teaches a method for controlling movement of an elevator system comprising: determining a car position indicator using safety monitor 8 and controller 7 based on a relationship between a first communication device 20 and at least one of a plurality of second communication devices 19; determining a priority indicator (desired landing floor) based on the position of the second communication devices; and prioritizing communication the first communication device and a second communication device based on a distance between the second communication device and a set of reference locations represented by switches 14/15.
Claim 17, Otsuka et al describes the first and second communication devices communicating via a network accessed by the elevator controller 7.
Claim 18, Otsuka et al teaches determine the car position based on the distance between the communication devices 19/20 and the reference positions represented by the switches 14/15.
Claim 19, Otsuka et al describes using continuous values such as distance measurements from the terminal floor switches 14/15 to each of the landing floors represented by second communication devices 19.
Claim 20, Otsuka et al describes the communication devices communicating wirelessly (see for example col. 4 lines 62-64.
Claims 21 and 26, Otsuka et al describes determining a car position based on the signal strength between RFID communication devices 19 and tag reader 20.
Claim 22, Otsuka et al describes safety monitor 8 and controller 7 for determining if the elevator car 5 is in the ascending or descending direction.
Claims 23-24, Otsuka et al describes that based on the direction of movement the position of the elevator car will be determined based on either the higher terminal floor switch 14 or the lower terminal floor-switch 15.
Claim 25, Otsuka et al describes control module 7 for providing the direction of movement of elevator car 7.
Claim 27-28, Otsuka et al describes controller 7 for automatically controlling the elevator car 5 by first operating the elevator system in a learning mode.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The attached PTO-892 describe other elevator systems which control operation of an elevator car in a vertical shaft by using a plurality of stationary position indicators and a sensor or communication device for interacting with the plurality of position indicators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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 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.
/RINA I DUDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights