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 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:
Elevator operating device in claims 18, 19, 25, 26.
Sensor system in claim 31.
Input device in claims 32 and 33.
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 § 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 18, 19, 20, 21, 28 - 33 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 18 and 19 recite the limitation "each elevator operating device" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this action it is assumed that antecedence is provided by way of requiring elevator operating devices on each floor. Claims 20-21 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " wherein operating the elevator system upon receipt of the elevator call entered by the person on the specified floor with an elevator operating device comprises" in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since there is no recitation of “operating the elevator system upon receipt of the elevator call entered by the person on the specified floor with an elevator operating device” in the claims upon which claim 20 depends. For the purpose of this action it is assumed that antecedence is provided by way of requiring receipt of the elevator call entered by the person on the specified floor with an elevator operating device. Claim 21 is rejected based on its dependency.
Claims 28 - 33 : Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “device” in claims 28, 29 and 30 is used by the claim to mean “at least one of a partition wall, a barrier or separators,” while the accepted meaning is “something devised” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purpose of this action, the Examiner assumes that ‘structure with which one elevator lobby is separated from another elevator lobby, wherein the at least one structure comprises at least one of a partition wall, a barrier or separators’ is meant instead. Claims 31-33 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Claims 31-33: With regard to claims 31-33, it is unclear how a wall/barrier/separator could be in a detectable open/close state, rendering the claims indefinite.
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.
Claims 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kameli (US 5,511,635).
Claims 15, 22, 34: Kameli discloses a method for operating a building system with an elevator system in a building having a plurality of floors, wherein the elevator system comprises an elevator group with a plurality of elevators (C5L17-18: cars of the elevator system) and a group controller for the elevator group (C5L13-15), wherein the group controller comprises an interface device (RAM, see C9L25-26) configured to receive building information (floor population, see C7L25) from a building management system, wherein the method comprises: receiving the building information by the interface device of the group controller (C9L7-9), wherein the building management system transmits the building information to the interface device and wherein, for each elevator of the plurality of elevators, the building information received results in an assignment of the respective elevator of the plurality of elevators to at least one elevator lobby for a specified floor, from which elevator lobby the assigned elevator of the plurality of elevators is accessed on the specified floor (C2L3-10) ; updating stored building information stored in a memory device (hard disk, see C9L60-61) of the elevator system with the building information received, wherein, for each elevator, the stored building information indicates an existing assignment of the respective elevator to at least one of the at least one elevator lobby for the specified floor; and operating the elevator system upon receipt of an elevator call entered by a person according to the stored building information stored in the memory device updated by the building information received (C9L55-58). Claims 22 and 34 are the corresponding apparatus.
Claims 16, 23: Kameli discloses configuring, with the group controller, the elevator system according to the stored building information updated, wherein the group controller reads the stored building information updated from the memory device, generates a dataset therefrom and stores the dataset in a group controller memory device (hard disk) of the group controller, wherein the dataset specifies for each elevator of the plurality of elevators which elevator lobby it is assigned to on the specified floor (since claims 1 and 22 allow for one lobby per floor, this limitation is satisfied by the specifying of a floor for each elevator).
Claims 18 and 25: The elevator system would necessarily comprise elevator operating devices (call buttons and associated circuitry) arranged on the plurality of floors, wherein the dataset specifies for each elevator operating device arranged on the specified floor which of the at least one elevator lobby it is assigned to (since the claim does not require more than one lobby per floor, the lobby and floor/landing would be synonymous).
Claim 20: Kameli discloses the method of claim 18, wherein operating the elevator system upon receipt of the elevator call entered by the person on the specified floor with an elevator operating device comprises: receiving the elevator call from the elevator operating device by the group controller, determining, by the group controller, the at least one elevator lobby to which the elevator operating device is assigned, determining, by the group controller, at least one elevator of the plurality of elevators assigned to this at least one elevator lobby, assigning, by the group controller, the at least one elevator of the plurality of elevators assigned to the at least one elevator lobby to serve the elevator call; and controlling, by the group controller, an elevator controller of the at least one elevator of the plurality of elevators assigned to the at least one elevator lobby to serve the elevator call (see rejections of claims 15, 16 and 18 above)
Claims 28, 29: Elevator lobbies on different floors would necessarily be separated by walls (floors/ceilings constitute walls).
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 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameli (US 5,511,635) in view of Official Notice.
Claims 21 and 27: Kameli discloses the method of claim 20, but does not appear to specify that the elevator call received indicates a direction of travel desired by the person, or that the elevator call received indicates a destination floor desired by the person. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that before the effective filing date of the instant Application, elevator calls were routinely to a specific floor or a specific direction, and therefore one of these two options would have been obvious, order to more effectively manage elevator use and minimize user wait times.
Claims 17, 19, 24, 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameli (US 5,511,635) in view of Collins et al (US 2015/0316410).
Claims 17 and 24: Kameli discloses the method of claim 16, but appears silent to at least one elevator of the plurality of elevators comprising two elevator doors, wherein the dataset for the at least one elevator of the plurality of elevators comprising two elevator doors specifies to which elevator lobby each of the two elevator doors on the specified floor is assigned, wherein an assignment indicates the at least one elevator lobby to which each of the two elevator doors will open and close. However, elevator cars with two doors was known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application. See Collins et al’s [0002]. Wherein the elevator shaft has two doors at each landing. It would therefore have been obvious to extend the teachings of Kameli tp specify to which elevator lobby each of the two elevator doors on the specified floor is assigned, wherein an assignment indicates the at least one elevator lobby to which each of the two elevator doors will open and close, so that the elevator may serve the call corresponding to the shaft door at which the call was made.
Claims 19 and 26: Kameli as modified by Collins et al render obvious the method of claim 17, wherein the dataset specifies for each elevator operating device arranged on the specified floor which of the at least one elevator lobby it is assigned to (this would be necessary, since the corresponding door would have to open for the elevator to be accessible to the lobby).
Claim 30: Elevator lobbies on different floors would necessarily be separated by walls (floors/ceilings constitute walls).
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