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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed September 30, 2025. Claims 11 and 15 have been canceled without prejudice. Claims 1-10, 12, 13 and 16-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 4, 10, 18 and 19 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 4, 10, 18 and 19 include the limitation “the first elevator car has an available ratio that is greater/less than a ratio of (each of the remaining) plurality of elevator cars”, in which an available ratio is described as a total occupancy relative to a maximum occupancy capacity. However claims 1 and 16, from which these claims depend, requires an available occupant capacity of the first car to be equal to occupant capacities of each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars. Therefore according to claims 1 and 16, the available ratio for each elevator car would be equal. It is unclear how an available ratio for the elevator cars can be both equal and greater/less than available ratios of other elevator cars. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as stating “the first elevator car has an available ratio that is equal to a ratio of (each of the remaining) plurality of elevator cars”
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 1-7, 9, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 7,549,517 B2) in view of Smith et al. (US 7,975,808 B2), further in view of Faruki et al. (US 9,505,584 B2).
Claims 1 and 20: Stanley et al. discloses a method for dispatching and a system for controlling traffic flow of a plurality of elevator cars comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that are executed by the processor to cause the processor to perform operations including receiving a call (passenger request) from a destination entry device (32) from a first location (source landing) of a plurality of locations (levels within a building) for at least one of the plurality of elevator cars (column 2 lines 24-26, lines 60-62). A travel direction is determined for an elevator car (column 4 lines 55-57). An occupant capacity is determined for each of the plurality of elevator cars by determining a number of occupants within the plurality of elevator cars (column 5 lines 13-15) and determining a number of calls assigned to each of the plurality of elevator cars that are positioned between a current location (current floor) of each of the plurality of elevator cars and the first location (step 76) (column 4 lines 59-65). Calls assigned to each of the plurality of elevator cars that are not positioned between the current location of each of the plurality of elevator cars and the first location then are excluded from the determination. The call from the first location is assigned to a first elevator car with a sufficient available occupant capacity (enough capacity remaining) (column 5 lines 13-17), where the call is assigned to an elevator car that is already assigned to calls at the first location to board passengers—thereby having a sufficient available occupant capacity—instead of an elevator car scheduled to drop off passengers at the first location—which may or may not have available occupant capacity—(column 5 lines 29-41). This reference fails to disclose a travel direction to be determined for each of the plurality of elevator cars and to exclude based on determining the travel direction, any of the plurality of elevator cars not traveling toward the first location when the call was received from being assigned to answer the call such that the first elevator car is determined to be traveling toward the first location in order to assign the call from the first location to the first elevator car. This reference further fails to disclose a first elevator car of the plurality of elevator cars to be determined to be traveling towards the first location and to have an available occupant capacity that is equal to the occupant capacities of each of a remaining plurality of elevator cars that are traveling towards the first location, a distance between the first location and the current location of the first elevator car and the remaining plurality of elevator cars that are traveling towards the first location to be determined in response to the available occupant capacity of the first elevator car and each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars being equal, and the call from the first location to be assigned to the first elevator car based on the distance between the first location and the current location of the first elevator car being less than the distance between the first location and the current location of each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars.
However Smith et al. teaches a method for dispatching and a system for controlling traffic flow of a plurality of elevator cars, where information of each of a plurality of elevator cars is determined (column 4 lines 19-27) including a travel direction, and any of the plurality of elevators not traveling toward a first location (requires a passenger on an elevator car to travel in a direction opposite to that of his destination) when a call was received is excluded from being assigned to answer the call based on determining the travel direction (column 4 line 62 through column 5 line 2). Therefore an elevator car traveling toward the first location is eligible to be assigned the call from the first location.
Given the teachings of Smith et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed in Stanley et al. with providing a travel direction to be determined for each of the plurality of elevator cars and to exclude based on determining the travel direction, any of the plurality of elevator cars not traveling toward the first location when the call was received from being assigned to answer the call such that the first elevator car is determined to be traveling toward the first location. Any elevator car then, including the first elevator car, traveling toward the first location is eligible for assigning the call from the first location. Doing so would prevent an elevator car from taking “a current passenger in the opposite direction they are currently traveling in” as taught in Smith et al. (column 5 lines 6-9) in order to optimize assigning a new hall call, while keeping an optimized time to destination (column 1 lines 21-25). These references fail to disclose the first elevator car of the plurality of elevator cars to be determined to have an available occupant capacity that is equal to the occupant capacities of each of a remaining plurality of elevator cars that are traveling towards the first location, a distance between the first location and the current location of the first elevator car and the remaining plurality of elevator cars that are traveling towards the first location to be determined in response to the available occupant capacity of the first elevator car and each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars being equal, and the call from the first location to be assigned to the first elevator car based on the distance between the first location and the current location of the first elevator car being less than the distance between the first location and the current location of each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars.
However Faruki et al. teaches a method for dispatching and a system for controlling traffic flow of a plurality of elevator cars, where any elevator car that is eligible for assigning a call (candidate elevator car) is considered as a potential candidate based on at least one or a combination of criterion including a number of assigned passengers to a car, current direction or wait time for a passenger to board an elevator car, and a candidate elevator that is ranked more favorable will be assigned (column 2 lines 21-34). When no potential candidate elevator car is more favorable, other criteria is used for assigning a call to an elevator car (column 4 lines 12-19). Therefore when a first potential candidate elevator car of a plurality of potential candidate elevator cars has a criterion that is equal to criterion of each of a remaining potential candidate elevator cars, another criteria is used to assign the call. Such criteria includes a distance between the first location and a current location determined of the first potential candidate elevator car and the remaining plurality of potential candidate elevator cars, and the call is assigned from the first location to the first potential candidate elevator car based on the distance between the first location and the current location of the first potential candidate elevator car being less than (closest to) the distance between the first location and the current location of each of the remaining plurality of potential candidate elevator cars.
Given the teachings of Faruki et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed in Stanley et al. as modified by Smith et al. with providing the first eligible elevator car of a plurality of eligible elevator cars traveling towards the first location to be determined to be equally favorable based on criterion such as available occupancy capacity of the first eligible elevator car and the remaining eligible elevator cars traveling towards the first location being equal, and a distance between the first location and the current location of the first eligible elevator car and the remaining plurality of eligible elevator cars traveling towards the first location to be determined in response to the available occupant capacity of the first elevator car and each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars being equal and the call from the first location to be assigned to the first elevator car based on the distance between the first location and the current location of the first elevator car being less than the distance between the first location and the current location of each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Doing so would allow a call to be “assigned to a qualified car that has a most favorable ranking of any qualified cars” as taught in Faruki et al. (column 1 lines 38-39), even when “the most favorably ranked qualified car will not be the most favorably ranked candidate elevator car” (column 3 lines 52-54).
Claim 2: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method where a number of occupants within the plurality of elevator cars is determined and a number of calls assigned to each of the plurality of elevator cars positioned between the current location of each of the plurality of elevator cars and the first location is determined, as stated above. A total occupancy then is determined for each of the plurality of elevator cars by computing an aggregate of the number of occupants within the plurality of elevator cars as shown in Stanley et al. (column 5 lines 13-15), and determined by computing an aggregate of the number of calls assigned to each of the plurality of elevator cars positioned between the current location of the plurality of elevator cars and the first location (column 4 lines 59-65).
Claim 3: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method as stated above, where a ratio between the total occupancy (number of passengers) of each of the plurality of elevator cars with a maximum occupancy capacity of each of the plurality of elevator cars is determined (step 88) as shown in Stanley et al. (column 5 lines 13-15).
Claim 4: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method where a ratio between the total occupancy of each of the elevator cars with a maximum occupancy capacity of each of the plurality of elevator cars is determined, and an available occupant capacity of the first elevator car is equal to occupant capacities of each of a remaining plurality of elevator cars, as stated above. The first elevator car then would have an available ratio that is equal to ratios of each of the plurality of elevator cars.
Claim 5: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method as stated above, where each of the calls assigned to the plurality of elevator cars includes data indicative of a number of prospective occupants at a location (source landing) of the call using passenger destination information, as shown in Stanley et al. (column 2 lines 29-34).
Claim 6: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method as stated above, where a number of prospective occupants at the location of each of the calls assigned to the plurality of elevator cars is determined, as shown in Stanley et al. (column 2 lines 29-34).
Claim 7: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method as stated above, where an elevator car is assigned to response to a passenger request which indicates a desired destination before the passenger enters an elevator car, as shown in Stanley (column 2 lines 3-9). Therefore the number of prospective occupants at the location of each of the calls is at least one.
Claim 9: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method where a number of occupants within the plurality of elevator cars is determined and prospective occupants at the location of each of the calls assigned to the plurality of elevator cars is determined, as stated above. A total occupancy then is determined for each of the plurality of elevator cars by computing an aggregate of the number of occupants within the plurality of elevator cars as shown in Stanley et al. (column 5 lines 13-15), and determined by computing an aggregate of the number of prospective occupants at the location of each of the calls assigned to the plurality of elevator cars (column 2 lines 29-34).
Claim 10: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method where an available occupant capacity of the first elevator car is equal to occupant capacities of each of a remaining plurality of elevator cars, as stated above. A ratio of the total occupancy (number of passengers) of each of the plurality of elevator cars relative to a maximum occupancy capacity of each of the plurality of elevator cars is determined (step 88) as shown in Stanley et al. (column 5 lines 13-15). The first elevator car then would have an available ratio that is equal to ratios of each of the plurality of elevator cars.
Claims 8 and 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 7,549,517 B2) modified by Smith et al. (US 7,975,808 B2) and Faruki et al. (US 9,505,584 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Scoville et al. (US 2017/0291792 A1).
Claim 8: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method as stated above, but fails to disclose each of the plurality of elevator cars to include a counter device configured to count/generate data indicative of the number of occupants within each of the plurality of elevator cars.
However Scoville et al. teaches a method for dispatching a plurality of elevator cars, where each of a plurality of elevator cars includes a counter device (sensor 321) configured to count and generate data indicative of a number of occupants (people who boarded) within each of the plurality of elevator cars (page 5 paragraph [0053]).
Given the teachings of Scoville et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Stanley et al. as modified by Faruki et al. with providing each of the plurality of elevator cars to include a counter device configured to count/generate data indicative of the number of occupants within each of the plurality of elevator cars. Doing so would reliably update “the expected number of people [to] approach the actual number of people observed in departing elevator cars [thereby allowing] the system [to] reduce system waste and slowdowns” as taught in Scoville et al. (page 3 paragraph [0038]).
Claim 16: Stanley et al. discloses a system for dispatching a plurality of elevator cars comprising at least one call device (destination entry device 32) positioned at a plurality of locations, configured to transmit a call (passenger request) for at least one of the plurality of elevator cars from a first location (source landing) of a plurality of locations (levels within a building) (column 2 lines 24-26, lines 60-62). A dispatch controller is operably coupled to the at least one call device at the plurality of locations in order to receive data indicative of the call (column 3 lines 2-4). A travel direction is determined for an elevator car (column 4 lines 55-57). The dispatch controller determines an occupant capacity for each of the plurality of elevator cars by determining a number of occupants within the plurality of elevator cars (column 5 lines 13-15) and determining a number of calls assigned to each of the plurality of elevator cars that are positioned between a current location (current floor) of each of the plurality of elevator cars and the first location (step 76) (column 4 lines 59-65). Calls assigned to each of the plurality of elevator cars that are not positioned between the current location of each of the plurality of elevator cars and the first location then are excluded from the determination. The dispatch controller assigns the call from the first location to a first elevator car with a sufficient available occupant capacity (enough capacity remaining) (column 5 lines 13-17), where the call is assigned to an elevator car that is already assigned to calls at the first location to board passengers—thereby having a sufficient available occupant capacity—instead of an elevator car scheduled to drop off passengers at the first location—which may or may not have available occupant capacity—(column 5 lines 29-41). This reference fails to disclose the dispatch controller to determine a travel direction for each of the plurality of elevator cars and to exclude any of the plurality of elevator cars not traveling toward the first location when the call was received from being assigned to answer the call such that the first elevator car is traveling toward the first location in order to assign the call from the first location to the first elevator car. This reference further fails to disclose the first elevator car of the plurality of elevator cars to be determined to have an available occupant capacity that is equal to the occupant capacities of each of a remaining plurality of elevator cars that are traveling towards the first location and to have an offset distance to the first location that is less than each of the remaining plurality of elevators cars, and the call from the first location to be assigned to the first elevator car that is traveling toward the first location based on the offset distance between the first location and the current location of the first elevator car being less than the offset distance between the first location and the current location of each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars traveling toward the first location. This reference further fails to disclose at least one counter device positioned in each of the plurality of elevator cars, configured to count a number of occupants in each of the plurality of elevator cars, such that the dispatch controller is operably coupled to the at least one counter device to receive data indicative of the number of occupants in the plurality of elevator cars.
However Smith et al. teaches a method for dispatching and a system for controlling traffic flow of a plurality of elevator cars, where information of each of a plurality of elevator cars is determined (column 4 lines 19-27) including a travel direction, and a dispatch controller excludes any of the plurality of elevators not traveling toward a first location (requires a passenger on an elevator car to travel in a direction opposite to that of his destination) when a call was received from being assigned to answer the call based on determining the travel direction (column 4 line 62 through column 5 line 2). Therefore an elevator car traveling toward the first location can be assigned the call from the first location.
Given the teachings of Smith et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed in Stanley et al. with providing the dispatch controller to determine a travel direction for each of the plurality of elevator cars and to exclude any of the plurality of elevator cars not traveling toward the first location when the call was received from being assigned to answer the call such that the first elevator car is traveling toward the first location in order to assign the call from the first location to the first elevator car. Doing so would prevent an elevator car from taking “a current passenger in the opposite direction they are currently traveling in” as taught in Smith et al. (column 5 lines 6-9) in order to optimize assigning a new hall call, while keeping an optimized time to destination (column 1 lines 21-25). These references fail to disclose the first elevator car of the plurality of elevator cars to be determined to have an available occupant capacity that is equal to the occupant capacities of each of a remaining plurality of elevator cars that are traveling towards the first location and to have an offset distance to the first location that is less than each of the remaining plurality of elevators cars, and the call from the first location to be assigned to the first elevator car that is traveling toward the first location based on the offset distance between the first location and the current location of the first elevator car being less than the offset distance between the first location and the current location of each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars traveling toward the first location. These references further fail to disclose at least one counter device positioned in each of the plurality of elevator cars, configured to count a number of occupants in each of the plurality of elevator cars, such that the dispatch controller is operably coupled to the at least one counter device to receive data indicative of the number of occupants in the plurality of elevator cars.
However Faruki et al. teaches a method for dispatching and a system for controlling traffic flow of a plurality of elevator cars, where any elevator car that is eligible for assigning a call (candidate elevator car) is considered as a potential candidate based on at least one or a combination of criterion including a number of assigned passengers to a car, current direction or wait time for a passenger to board an elevator car, and a candidate elevator that is ranked more favorable will be assigned (column 2 lines 21-34). When no potential candidate elevator car is more favorable, other criteria is used for assigning a call to an elevator car (column 4 lines 12-19). Therefore when a first potential candidate elevator car of a plurality of potential candidate elevator cars has a criterion that is equal to criterion of each of a remaining potential candidate elevator cars, another criteria is used to assign the call. Such criteria includes an offset distance between the first location and a current location determined of the first potential candidate elevator car and the remaining plurality of potential candidate elevator cars, and the call is assigned from the first location to the first potential candidate elevator car based on the offset distance between the first location and the current location of the first potential candidate elevator car being less than (closest to) the offset distance between the first location and the current location of each of the remaining plurality of potential candidate elevator cars.
Given the teachings of Faruki et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Stanley et al. as modified by Smith et al. with providing the first eligible elevator car of a plurality of eligible elevator cars traveling towards the first location to be determined to be equally favorable based on criterion such as available occupancy capacity of the first eligible elevator car and the remaining eligible elevator cars traveling towards the first location being equal, and an offset distance between the first location and the current location of the first eligible elevator car and the remaining plurality of eligible elevator cars traveling towards the first location to be determined in response to the available occupant capacity of the first elevator car and each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars being equal, and the call from the first location to be assigned to the first elevator car traveling toward the first location based on the offset distance between the first location and the current location of the first elevator car being less than the offset distance between the first location and the current location of each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars traveling toward the first location. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Doing so would allow a call to be “assigned to a qualified car that has a most favorable ranking of any qualified cars” as taught in Faruki et al. (column 1 lines 38-39), even when “the most favorably ranked qualified car will not be the most favorably ranked candidate elevator car” (column 3 lines 52-54). These references fail to disclose at least one counter device positioned in each of the plurality of elevator cars, configured to count a number of occupants in each of the plurality of elevator cars, such that the dispatch controller is operably coupled to the at least one counter device to receive data indicative of the number of occupants in the plurality of elevator cars.
However Scoville et al. teaches a method for dispatching a plurality of elevator cars, where a counter device (sensor 321) is positioned in each of the plurality of elevator cars, and is configured to count a number of occupants (people who boarded) within each of the plurality of elevator cars, and a dispatch controller is operably coupled to the counter device to receive data indicative of the number of occupants in the plurality of elevator cars (page 5 paragraph [0053]).
Given the teachings of Scoville et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Stanley et al. as modified by Smith et al. and Faruki et al. with providing counter device positioned in each of the plurality of elevator cars, configured to count a number of occupants in each of the plurality of elevator cars, such that the dispatch controller is operably coupled to the at least one counter device to receive data indicative of the number of occupants in the plurality of elevator cars. Doing so would reliably update “the expected number of people [to] approach the actual number of people observed in departing elevator cars [thereby allowing] the system [to] reduce system waste and slowdowns” as taught in Scoville et al. (page 3 paragraph [0038]).
Claim 17: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al., Patel and Scoville et al. discloses a system where a number of occupants within the plurality of elevator cars is determined and a number of calls assigned to each of the plurality of elevator cars positioned between the current location of each of the plurality of elevator cars and the first location is determined, as stated above. A total occupancy then is determined for each of the plurality of elevator cars by computing an aggregate of the number of occupants within the plurality of elevator cars as shown in Stanley et al. (column 5 lines 13-15), and determined by computing an aggregate of the number of calls assigned to each of the plurality of elevator cars positioned between the current location of the plurality of elevator cars and the first location (column 4 lines 59-65).
Claim 18: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al., Faruki et al. and Scoville et al. discloses a system, where an available occupant capacity of the first elevator car is equal to occupant capacities of each of a remaining plurality of elevator cars, as stated above. A ratio between the total occupancy (number of passengers) of each of the plurality of elevator cars with a maximum occupancy capacity of each of the plurality of elevator cars is determined (step 88) as shown in Stanley et al. (column 5 lines 13-15). The first elevator car then would have an available ratio that is equal to ratios of each of the plurality of elevator cars.
Claim 19: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al., Faruki et al. and Scoville et al. discloses a system where a number of occupants within the plurality of elevator cars is determined, a number of calls assigned to the plurality of elevator cars positioned between the current location of the plurality of elevator cars and the first location is determined, occupants at the location of each of the calls assigned to the plurality of elevator cars is determined, and an available occupant capacity of the first elevator car is equal to occupant capacities of each of a remaining plurality of elevator cars, as stated above. A number of occupants at the location of each of the calls assigned to the plurality of elevator cars is determined, as shown in Stanley et al. (column 2 lines 29-34). A total occupancy is determined for each of the plurality of elevator cars by computing an aggregate of the number of occupants within the plurality of elevator cars (column 5 lines 13-15), and determined by computing an aggregate of the number of prospective occupants at the location of each of the calls assigned to the plurality of elevator cars (column 2 lines 29-34). A ratio of the total occupancy (number of passengers) of each of the plurality of elevator cars relative to a maximum occupancy capacity of each of the plurality of elevator cars is determined (step 88) as shown in Stanley et al. (column 5 lines 13-15). The first elevator car then would have an available ratio that is equal to ratios of each of the plurality of elevator cars.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 7,549,517 B2) modified by Smith et al. (US 7,975,808 B2) and Faruki et al. (US 9,505,584 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tokura (US 8,196,711 B2).
Claim 12: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method as stated above, where motion data is received from the plurality of elevator cars, which includes the current location (elevator car position) and a travel direction of the plurality of elevator cars as shown in Stanley et al. (column 4 lines 55-58). These references fail to disclose the motion data to include travel speed.
However Tokura teaches a method for dispatching a plurality of elevator cars, where motion data is received from a plurality of elevator cars, which includes a travel speed (column 4 lines 34-37).
Given the teachings of Tokura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Stanley et al. as modified by Smith et al. and Faruki et al. with providing the motion data to include travel speed. Doing so would allow assignment of an elevator car to further be based on an arrival prediction time based on a speed of each of the plurality of elevator cars, as taught in Tokura (column 2 lines 14-24).
Claim 13: Stanley et al. modified by Smith et al., Faruki et al. and Tokura discloses a method where motion data includes travel speed, as stated above. The call from the first location is shown in Tokura to be assigned to an elevator car using assignment evaluation values such as passenger waiting time to determine which elevator car has the best assignment evaluation value (column 3 line 65 through column 4 line 6). The call from the first location is further shown in Tokura to be assigned to the first elevator car based on a determined maximum speed of each car with respect to the call (column 1 line 65 through column 2 line 2). These references fail to disclose the call from the first location to be assigned to the first elevator car with the travel speed that is greater than the travel speed of the remaining plurality of elevator cars.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the call from the first location to be assigned to the first elevator car with the travel speed that is greater than the travel speed of the remaining plurality of elevator cars, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would “determine a car, for which [passenger’s waiting time] becomes the best, as an assigned car” as taught in Tokura (column 3 line 65 through column 4 line 6).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 December 30, 2025
Prosecution Insights