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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to claims 7-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 7-9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to claims 7-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 7-11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that “(i) the proposed combination of Thebeau and Deans fails to disclose the elements of claim 1 Applicant respectfully submits that the obviousness rejection based on Thebeau and Deans is improper as Thebeau and Deans fail to teach or suggest each and every element of the claims. For an obviousness rejection to be proper, the Examiner must meet the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Fine, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Examiner must meet the burden of establishing that all elements of the claims are taught or suggested in the prior art. MPEP §2143.03. Claim 1 recites "a server remotely located from the plurality of elevator systems and configured to send and receive the communications between the datacenter and the software-based cloud communication platform, the server including a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of the plurality of elevator systems." In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner cites to Deans as follows. However, Deans teaches a computer ncluding a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of a plurality of systems [see Fig.11, page 11,fines 9-23, claim 22; a computer including a plurality of software modems each allocated to different applications and/or different DSPs Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's interpretation of Deans. Deans does not disclose software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of the plurality of elevator systems. The section of Deans cited by the Examiner is presented below. Figure 11 is a diagram showing how multi-instanced software can be utilized to implement a plurality of modems which can be used simultaneously or independently in accordance with one embodiment of the invention Entire controllerless software modems (e g Figure 3) can be made multi-mstanced using the techniques described herein Such a controllerless modem could contain components, such as the protocol layer or the DLC layer which are themselves multi-instanced As a result one can implement a plurality of software modems as instances of a single code set As a result, a manufacturer could manufacture and a consumer purchase essentially a plurality of software modems which are instances of a single code set and these could be activated by simply selecting the instance to be utilized at any given point in time This enables one to effectively have a plurality of modems running substantially simultaneously (or independently), each having different characteristics. In some multiple modem configurations, multiple independent DSP chips may be required, depending on the design, interface, and processing capabilities of each DSP. Deans makes no reference to the software modems being assigned to a respective device. Deans generally refers to "the modems running substantially simultaneously (or independently), each having different characteristics" , but this is not a disclosure of a one-to-one correspondence between the software modems at some external device. Thus, even if Deans is somehow combined with Thebeau, the claimed "software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of the plurality of elevator systems" would not result, as neither Thebeau nor Deans discloses this aspect of claim 1. (ii) Deans is non-analogous art Dean is non-analogous art and not properly relied upon in an obviousness rejection. Pursuant to MPEP § 2141.01(a), in order to rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of an applicant's invention, the reference must either be in the field of applicant's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Claim 1 is directed to an elevator data communication system that interfaces plurality of elevator systems and a datacenter via a software-based cloud communication platform, using discrete software-based simulated modem instances each associated with each assigned to a respective one of the plurality of elevator systems. Thebeau likewise is in the elevator/cloud control field, not modem simulation. Thebeau's disclosure centers on a cloud server distributing elevator dispatch/control data to elevator controllers; communications may use telephone/cellular/Wi-Fi/Ethernet/satellite/cable links 208- 1 and 208-2. See Thebeau, paragraph [0020]. Deans, by contrast, is directed to generic compiler/preprocessor techniques for converting single-instance software into multi-instance software and to software modem instances running on a single processor, with emphasis on eliminating the need for multiple hardware modems and enabling multi-tasking without an MMU or OS support. Deans' modem teachings concern internal software instantiation and memory management, not elevator communications or datacenter/elevator site architectures. Accordingly, Deans is outside the field of endeavor as the claimed elevator data communication system. Deans is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventors were concerned. The problem addressed by this application is providing a remote datacenter-to-elevator communication system that preserves compatibility with legacy analog elevator equipment while migrating to a software/cloud architecture, by using discrete software-based simulated modems each tied to an elevator system (see paragraphs [0025], [0028], [0032] of this application). Deans does not address, and is not reasonably pertinent to, compatibility with legacy analog elevator-site modems, PSTN signaling, VoIP account number mapping to field devices, or assigning discrete call-in identities per remote elevator system. Instead, Deans teaches generic software engineering to create multiple code "instances" and a "software modem" running on a single processor, e.g., "a plurality of instances of modem software running on said processor which can be activated selectively" (See Dean, claim 20). A person of ordinary skill in elevator telemetry would not look to compiler/preprocessor macro techniques to solve the distinct network/system integration problem of replacing physical modem banks with VoIP/PSTN-addressable simulated modems dedicated to specific elevator sites” in pages 6-9.
In response to applicant’s argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above.
In response to applicant's argument that Deans is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Deans is analogous art because it is related to computer technology and software-based communication platform.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Thebeau discloses a method of communication between a plurality of elevator systems and a datacenter remotely located from the plurality of elevator systems [see Fig. 2, para. 16, 21, 24, 26; a method of communication between a plurality of elevators 202-1 and 202-2 and a datacenter remotely located from the plurality of elevators 202-1 and 202-2. Note that the datacenter is a combination of Reports, Group/Op. Control Functions, Diagnostics, SW downloads, backend computer 210], the method comprising: transferring communications between a software-based cloud communication platform and the plurality of elevator systems [see Fig. 2, para. 19-21; transferring communications between cloud 206 and the plurality of elevators 202-1 and 202-2] via a public switched telephone network [see para. 20; via one or more communications protocol, standards, or the like including telephone, cellular, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, satellite, or cable communications]; and transferring the communications via the Internet and between the software-based cloud communication platform and a server located at the datacenter [see Fig. 2, para. 19-21; transferring communications between the cloud 206 and a cloud server located at the datacenter via one or more communications protocol, standards, or the like including telephone, cellular, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, satellite, or cable communications].
Deans discloses a plurality of software-based simulated modems executed by a computer, wherein each system is assigned to a respective one of a plurality of software-based simulated modems [see Fig. 11, page 11, lines 9-23, claim 22; a plurality of software modems executed by a computer, wherein each application and/or DSP is assigned to a respective one of the plurality of software modems].
In view of the above response, the combined system of Thebeau and Deans discloses each and every element of independent claims 1 and 14.
Specification
The specification amendment submitted on 12/24/2025 which amended the title has been accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “The Internet” in line 6. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the Internet”.
Claims 15-17 are also objected since they are depended on the objected claim set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,103,816 B2, hereinafter “Patent’816”.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as the first application or patent. Moreover, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are the same scope of the claims of Patent’816.
Regarding claim 1, Patent’816 discloses An elevator data communication system configured to communicate between a plurality of elevator systems and a datacenter remotely located from the plurality of elevator systems, the elevator data communication system comprising: [see claim 1, lines 1-5]
a software-based cloud communication platform configured to receive and send communications to the plurality of elevator systems; and [see claim 1, lines 6-8]
a server remotely located from the plurality of elevator systems and configured to send and receive the communications between the datacenter and the software-based cloud communication platform, the server including a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of the plurality of elevator systems. [see claim 1, lines 9-15]
Regarding claim 2, Patent’816 discloses The elevator data communication system set forth in claim 1, wherein the plurality of software-based simulated modems are configured to simulate a plurality of analog modems. [see claim 2]
Regarding claim 3, Patent’816 discloses The elevator data communication system set forth in claim 1, wherein the software-based cloud communication platform is a voice over internet protocol provider. [see claim 3]
Regarding claim 4, Patent’816 discloses The elevator data communication system set forth in claim 3, wherein the voice over internet protocol provider communicates with the plurality of elevator systems via a public switched telephone network. [see claim 4]
Regarding claim 5, Patent’816 discloses The elevator data communication system set forth in claim 1, wherein the server is located at the datacenter. [see claim 5]
Regarding claim 6, Patent’816 discloses The elevator data communication system set forth in claim 1, wherein each software-based simulated modem is configured with a VoIP phone number. [see claim 1, lines 16-17]
Regarding claim 7, Patent’816 discloses The elevator data communication system set forth in claim 6, wherein each VoIP phone number is configure to connect with the software-based cloud communication platform and is assigned to a respective one of the plurality of systems. [see claim 1, lines 18-21]
Regarding claim 8, Patent’816 discloses The elevator data communication system set forth in claim 7, wherein the software-based cloud communication platform is a VoIP provider. [see claim 1, lines 22-23]
Regarding claim 9, Patent’816 discloses The elevator data communication system set forth in claim 8, wherein the server is configured to call each elevator system of the plurality of elevator systems utilizing a respective one of the plurality of software-based simulated modems and the associated VoIP phone number. [see claim 1, lines 24-27]
Regarding claim 10, Patent’816 discloses The elevator data communication system set forth in claim 1, wherein the communications include operation data, and the server includes a non-transitory storage medium for storing a database that includes the operation data. [see claim 6]
Regarding claim 11, Patent’816 discloses The elevator data communication system set forth in claim 10, wherein the server applies an application service that receives the operation data from the plurality of software-based simulated modems and transfers to the database. [see claim 7]
Regarding claim 12, Patent’816 discloses The elevator data communication system set forth in claim 1, wherein the software-based cloud communication platform communicates with the server via the Internet. [see claim 8]
Regarding claim 13, Patent’816 discloses The elevator data communication system set forth in claim 1, wherein the software-based cloud communication platform communicates with the server via a cellular connection. [see claim 9]
It has been held that the omission an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thebeau et al. (US 2016/0107861 A1, hereinafter “Thebeau”) in view of Deans (WO 99/10807).
Regarding claim 1, Thebeau discloses an elevator data communication system configured to communicate between a plurality of elevator systems and a datacenter remotely located from the plurality of elevator systems [see Fig. 2, para. 16, 21, 24, 26; system 200 configured to communicate between a plurality of elevators 202-1 and 202-2 and a datacenter remotely located from the plurality of elevators 202-1 and 202-2. Note that the datacenter is a combination of Reports, Group/Op. Control Functions, Diagnostics, SW downloads, backend computer 210], the elevator data communication system comprising:
a software-based cloud communication platform [see Fig. 2, para. 19; cloud 206] configured to receive and send communications to the plurality of elevator systems [see Fig. 2, para. 19-21; cloud 206 configured to receive and send communications to the plurality of elevators 202-1 and 202-2]; and
a server remotely located from the plurality of elevator systems [see Fig. 2, para. 20-21; a cloud server remotely located from the plurality of elevators 202-1 and 202-2] and configured to send and receive the communications between the datacenter and the software-based cloud communication platform [see Fig. 2, para. 20-21; configured to send and receive the communications between the datacenter and the cloud 206].
Thebeau does not explicitly disclose the server including a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of the plurality of elevator systems.
However, Deans teaches a computer including a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of a plurality of systems [see Fig. 11, page 11, lines 9-23, claim 22; a computer including a plurality of software modems each allocated to different applications and/or different DSPs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a computer including a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of a plurality of systems”, as taught by Deans, into the system of Thebeau so that it would provide a plurality of modems running substantially simultaneously, each having different characteristics [see Deans, page 11, lines 19-21].
Regarding claim 14, Thebeau discloses a method of communication between a plurality of elevator systems and a datacenter remotely located from the plurality of elevator systems [see Fig. 2, para. 16, 21, 24, 26; a method of communication between a plurality of elevators 202-1 and 202-2 and a datacenter remotely located from the plurality of elevators 202-1 and 202-2. Note that the datacenter is a combination of Reports, Group/Op. Control Functions, Diagnostics, SW downloads, backend computer 210], the method comprising:
transferring communications between a software-based cloud communication platform and the plurality of elevator systems [see Fig. 2, para. 19-21; transferring communications between cloud 206 and the plurality of elevators 202-1 and 202-2] via a public switched telephone network [see para. 20; via one or more communications protocol, standards, or the like including telephone, cellular, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, satellite, or cable communications]; and
transferring the communications via the Internet and between the software-based cloud communication platform and a server located at the datacenter [see Fig. 2, para. 19-21; transferring communications between the cloud 206 and a cloud server located at the datacenter via one or more communications protocol, standards, or the like including telephone, cellular, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, satellite, or cable communications].
Thebeau does not explicitly disclose a plurality of software-based simulated modems executed by a server, wherein each elevator system of the plurality of elevator systems is assigned to a respective one of the software-based simulated modems.
However, Deans teaches a plurality of software-based simulated modems executed by a computer, wherein each system is assigned to a respective one of a plurality of software-based simulated modems [see Fig. 11, page 11, lines 9-23, claim 22; a plurality of software modems executed by a computer, wherein each application and/or DSP is assigned to a respective one of the plurality of software modems].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of software-based simulated modems executed by a computer, wherein each system is assigned to a respective one of the plurality of software-based simulated modems”, as taught by Deans, into the system of Thebeau so that it would provide a plurality of modems running substantially simultaneously, each having different characteristics [see Deans, page 11, lines 19-21].
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Thebeau discloses wherein the software-based cloud communication platform is a voice over internet protocol provider [see Fig. 2, para. 20; the cloud 206 is communicate over one or more connections, channels, or links. The connections adhere to one or more communications protocol, standards, or the like including telephone, cellular, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, satellite, or cable communications].
Regarding claim 4, Thebeau discloses wherein the voice over internet protocol provider communicates with the plurality of elevator systems via a public switched telephone network [see Fig. 2, para. 17, 20; the plurality of elevators 202-1 and 202-2 communicate over one or more connections, channels, or links. The connections adhere to one or more communications protocol, standards, or the like including telephone, cellular, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, satellite, or cable communications].
Regarding claim 5, Thebeau discloses wherein the server is located at the datacenter [see Fig. 2, para. 16, 21, 24, 26; the cloud server is located at the datacenter].
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Thebeau discloses wherein the communications include operation data, and the server includes a non-transitory storage medium for storing a database that includes the operation data [see para. 24, 41; the communications include operational metrics, and the cloud server includes a non-transitory storage medium for storing the operational metrics].
Regarding claim 11, Thebeau discloses wherein the server applies an application service that receives the operation data from the plurality of controllers and transfers to the database [see para. 19, 21; the functions of the controllers (modems) are moved to the cloud server, and all of the operational mode determinations, diagnostic functions, special contract features, etc., which include operation data, are transferred to the cloud server].
Although Thebeau discloses a plurality of controllers,
Thebeau does not explicitly disclose a plurality of software-based simulated modems.
However, Deans teaches a computer including a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of a plurality of systems [see Fig. 11, page 11, lines 9-23, claim 22; a computer including a plurality of software modems each allocated to different applications and/or different DSPs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a computer including a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of a plurality of systems”, as taught by Deans, into the system of Thebeau so that it would provide a plurality of modems running substantially simultaneously, each having different characteristics [see Deans, page 11, lines 19-21].
Regarding claim 12, Thebeau discloses wherein the software-based cloud communication platform communicates with the server via the Internet [see para. 20; the cloud 206 communicates with the cloud server via one or more communications protocol, standards, or the like including telephone, cellular, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, satellite, or cable communications].
Regarding claim 13, Thebeau discloses wherein the software-based cloud communication platform communicates with the server via a cellular connection [see para. 20; the cloud 206 communicates with the cloud server via one or more communications protocol, standards, or the like including telephone, cellular, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, satellite, or cable communications].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thebeau in view of Deans and Richmond et al. (US 2017/0228950 A1, hereinafter “Richmond”).
Regarding claim 2, Deans discloses the plurality of software-based simulated modems [see Fig. 11, page 11, lines 9-23, claim 22; the plurality of software modems].
The combined system of Thebeau and Deans does not explicitly disclose the plurality of software-based simulated modems are configured to “simulate a plurality of analog modems.”
However, Richmond teaches a plurality of software-based simulated modems are configured to simulate a plurality of analog modems [see para. 11; software-based simulated modems are configured to simulate analog modems].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of software-based simulated modems are configured to simulate a plurality of analog modems”, as taught by Richmond, into the combined system of Thebeau and Deans so that it would provide faster, more reliable data connections [see Richmond, para. 11].
Claims 6-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thebeau in view of Deans and Chen et al. (US 2020/0236531 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 6, Deans discloses software-based simulated modem [see Fig. 11, page 11, lines 9-23, claim 22; plurality of software modems].
The combined system of Thebeau and Deans does not explicitly disclose each software-based simulated modem is configured with a VoIP phone number.
However, Chen teaches software-based simulated modem is configured with a VoIP phone number [see para. 48; modem device identification is a VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) account number].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “each software-based simulated modem is configured with a VoIP phone number”, as taught by Chen, into the combined system of Thebeau and Deans so that it would ensure incoming call and short message are received in time [see Chen, para. 48].
Regarding claim 7, Thebeau discloses the software-based cloud communication platform [see Fig. 2, para. 19; cloud 206] configured to receive and send communications to the plurality of elevator systems [see Fig. 2, para. 19-21; cloud 206 configured to receive and send communications to the plurality of elevators 202-1 and 202-2].
Thebeau does not explicitly disclose a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of the plurality of elevator systems.
However, Deans teaches a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of the plurality of systems [see Fig. 11, page 11, lines 9-23, claim 22; a computer including a plurality of software modems each allocated to different applications and/or different DSPs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of the plurality of systems”, as taught by Deans, into the system of Thebeau so that it would provide a plurality of modems running substantially simultaneously, each having different characteristics [see Deans, page 11, lines 19-21].
The combined system of Thebeau and Deans does not explicitly disclose “each VoIP phone number” is configure to connect with the software-based cloud communication platform.
However, Chen teaches each VoIP phone number is configure to connect with the software-based cloud communication platform [see Fig. 1, para. 34-35, 48; a VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) account number is configured to connect with the cloud modem device].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “each VoIP phone number is configure to connect with the software-based cloud communication platform”, as taught by Chen, into the combined system of Thebeau and Deans so that it would ensure incoming call and short message are received in time [see Chen, para. 48].
Regarding claim 8, Thebeau discloses the software-based cloud communication platform [see para. 20; the cloud 206 communicates over one or more connections, channels, or links. The connections adhere to one or more communications protocol, standards, or the like including telephone, cellular, Wi-Fi, Ethernet, satellite, or cable communications].
Thebeau does not explicitly disclose a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of the plurality of elevator systems.
However, Deans teaches a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of the plurality of systems [see Fig. 11, page 11, lines 9-23, claim 22; a computer including a plurality of software modems each allocated to different applications and/or different DSPs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of software-based simulated modems each assigned to a respective one of the plurality of systems”, as taught by Deans, into the system of Thebeau so that it would provide a plurality of modems running substantially simultaneously, each having different characteristics [see Deans, page 11, lines 19-21].
The combined system of Thebeau and Deans does not explicitly disclose “a VoIP provider.”
However, Chen teaches software-based simulated modem is configured with a VoIP phone number [see para. 48; modem device identification is a VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) account number].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “each software-based simulated modem is configured with a VoIP phone number”, as taught by Chen, into the combined system of Thebeau and Deans so that it would ensure incoming call and short message are received in time [see Chen, para. 48].
Regarding claim 15, Thebeau discloses wherein each elevator system of the plurality of elevator systems is associated with a controller [see Fig. 2, para. 17; elevator 202-1 is associated with controller 204-1 and elevator 202-2 is associated with controller 204-2].
Thebeau does not explicitly disclose the software-based simulated modems.
However, Deans teaches each system of a plurality of systems is associated with a respective one of the software-based simulated modems [see Fig. 11, page 11, lines 9-23, claim 22; a plurality of software modems each allocated to different applications and/or different DSPs].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “each system of a plurality of systems is associated with a respective one of the software-based simulated modems”, as taught by Deans, into the system of Thebeau so that it would provide a plurality of modems running substantially simultaneously, each having different characteristics [see Deans, page 11, lines 19-21].
The combined system of Thebeau and Deans does not explicitly disclose each elevator system of the plurality of elevator systems is associated with a respective one of the software-based simulated modems “via a unique phone number.”
However, Chen teaches software-based simulated modem is configured with a VoIP phone number [see para. 48; modem device identification is a VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) account number].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “each software-based simulated modem is configured with a VoIP phone number”, as taught by Chen, into the combined system of Thebeau and Deans so that it would ensure incoming call and short message are received in time [see Chen, para. 48].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (US 2003/0144029 A1), see Fig. 3, para. 21-36, discloses a new architecture using a software modem for implementing a wireless communication system having a host and a transceiver device.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, JAE LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights