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 February 4, 2026. Claims 1-20 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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkina et al. (US 2020/0031612 A1) in view of Matsuzawa et al. (US 3,831,715), further in view of Faruki et al. (US 9,505,584 B2).
Claims 1, 10 and 15: Akkina et al. discloses a method of reassigning/operating a first elevator car of a plurality of elevator cars, and a system for dispatching a first elevator car of a plurality of elevator cars, where a counter device (one or more sensors 245, 246) is positioned in the first elevator car (231) and configured to count a number of occupants (passengers) in the first elevator car (page 3 paragraph [0032]). A number of occupants within the first elevator car is determined to be less than a total occupancy limit for the first elevator car (page 3 paragraph [0036]). A dispatch controller (dispatching software) as part of an elevator subsystem (240) is operably couped to the counter device (page 2 paragraph [0023]), to receive data indicative of the number of occupants in the first elevator car and further assigns and moves/dispatches the first elevator car (page 3 paragraph [0031]) from a current location to/toward a first destination location (lobby 203) in response to an elevator call from the first destination location to pick up an occupant at the first destination location based on the number of occupants in the first elevator car being less than the total occupancy limit for the first elevator car (page 3 paragraph [0035]).
An increased number of occupants within the first elevator car is redetermined due to the number of occupants in the first elevator car increasing by detecting each time a passenger enters the elevator car prior to the first elevator car arriving at the first destination location (page 3 paragraph [0037]). The increased number of occupants within the first elevator car is determined to be greater than/exceeding the number of occupants in a second elevator car prior to arriving at the first destination location (pages 3-4 paragraphs [0037]-[0038]). Assignment of the first elevator car to the first destination location is canceled and the second elevator car is dispatched to the first destination location to pick up the occupant (page 4 paragraphs [0038]-[0039]). The first elevator car then is directed/redirected/dispatched to a second destination location different from the first destination location such that the first elevator car does not stop at the first destination location. This reference fails to disclose the first elevator car to be stopped and a determination to be made that the first elevator car is stopped at an intermediate location between the current location and the first destination location to receive an additional/new occupant prior to picking up the occupant at the first destination location, and the first elevator car to receive one or more additional/new occupants from the intermediate location, such that the number of occupants/occupant capacity in the first elevator car are/is determined after stopping at the intermediate location. This reference further fails to disclose the number of occupants within the first elevator car to be determined to be less than a number of occupants in each of a remaining plurality of elevator cars, such that the first elevator car is dispatched from the current location to the first destination location based on the number of occupants in the first elevator car being less than the number of occupants in each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars, the increased number of occupants within/occupant capacity of the first elevator car to be redetermined relative to a number of occupants of/occupant capacity of each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars in response to the first elevator car stopped at the intermediate location to receive the additional occupant, and the increased number of occupants within the first elevator car determined to be less than a maximum occupant capacity of the first elevator car such that the first elevator car is directed to the second destination location when the increased number of occupants within the first elevator car is less than the maximum occupant capacity of the first elevator car and greater than the number of occupants of the second elevator car of the remaining plurality of elevator cars.
However Matsuzawa et al. teaches a method and a system, where a first elevator (elevator car A) stops and a determination is made that the first elevator car is stopped at an intermediate location (fourth floor) between a current location and a first destination location (seventh floor) prior to picking up an occupant at the first destination location so that the first elevator car can receive one or more additional/new occupants from the intermediate location (column 14 line 46 through column 15 line 14).
Given the teachings of Matsuzawa 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 Akkina et al. with providing the first elevator car to be stopped and a determination to be made that the first elevator car is stopped at an intermediate location between the current location and the first destination location to receive an additional/new occupant prior to picking up the occupant at the first destination location, and the first elevator car to receive one or more additional/new occupants from the intermediate location. The number of occupants/occupant capacity in the first elevator care then would be determined after stopping at the intermediate location and the occupants entering the elevator car. Doing so would “reduce the waiting time for passengers and realize an efficient parallel operation of the elevator car group” as taught in Matsuzawa et al. (column 1 lines 31-33). These references fail to disclose the number of occupants within the first elevator car to be determined to be less than a number of occupants in each of a remaining plurality of elevator cars, such that the first elevator car is dispatched from the current location to the first destination location based on the number of occupants in the first elevator car being less than the number of occupants in each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars, the increased number of occupants within/occupant capacity of the first elevator car to be redetermined relative to a number of occupants of/occupant capacity of each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars in response to the first elevator car stopped at the intermediate location to receive the additional occupant, and the increased number of occupants within the first elevator car determined to be less than a maximum occupant capacity of the first elevator car such that the first elevator car is directed to the second destination location when the increased number of occupants within the first elevator car is less than the maximum occupant capacity of the first elevator car and greater than the number of occupants of the second elevator car of the remaining plurality of elevator cars.
However Faruki et al. teaches a method and a system, where an elevator car that is less crowded is ranked more favorably than an elevator car that is more fully loaded (column 2 lines 42-44) for assigning a new passenger (column 1 lines 34-39). Therefore the number of occupants within/occupant capacity of a first elevator car would be compared to a number of occupants of/occupant capacity of each of a remaining plurality of elevator cars before a new passenger is assigned to board an elevator car, and an elevator is dispatched to a destination location based on the number of occupants in said elevator being less than the number of occupants in each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars regardless of whether a maximum occupant capacity of an elevator car has been reached.
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 Akkina et al. as modified by Matsuzawa et al. with providing the number of occupants within the first elevator car to be determined to be less than a number of occupants in each of a remaining plurality of elevator cars, such that the first elevator car is dispatched from the current location to the first destination location based on the number of occupants in the first elevator car being less than the number of occupants in each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars. The increased number of occupants within/occupant capacity of the first elevator car then would be redetermined relative to a number of occupants of/occupant capacity of each of the remaining plurality of elevator cars in response to the first elevator car stopped at the intermediate location to receive the additional occupant, and the first elevator car would be directed to the second destination location when the increased number of occupants within the first elevator car is greater than the number of occupants of the second elevator car of the remaining plurality of elevator cars, regardless of whether the increased number of occupants within the first car is determined to be less than the maximum occupant capacity of the first elevator car. Doing so would “improve an ability of the elevator [system] to manage elevator calls … without wasting time of the passengers and wasting operation cycles of the elevator system itself” as taught in Akkina et al. (page 1 paragraph [0011]), even during non-peak times when the number of occupants/occupant capacity of elevator car may not at the total occupancy limit, while further ensuring that a group of passengers waiting at the same floor can board the same elevator together and not get separated during their travel.
Claim 2: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method where the second elevator car is dispatched to the first destination location to pick up the occupant, as stated above.
Claims 3 and 12: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method as stated above, where prior to directing/redirecting the first elevator car to the second destination location, a number of occupants within the plurality of elevator cars and a maximum occupancy capacity/occupancy limit (total occupancy limit) of the plurality of elevator cars is disclosed in Akkina et al. to be determined and compared (pages 3-4 paragraphs [0037]-[0038]). Therefore an occupancy ratio between a number of occupants within each of the plurality of elevator cars and a maximum occupancy capacity/occupancy limit of each of the plurality of elevator cars is determined, and the occupancy ratio of each of the plurality of elevator cars relative to one another are compared.
Claims 4 and 13: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method where an occupancy ratio is compared for each of the plurality of cars, as stated above. The first elevator car is disclosed in Akkina et al. to be determined to have a maximum occupancy capacity and the second elevator car is determined to have less than a maximum occupancy capacity (pages 3-4 paragraphs [0037]-[0038]). Therefore the occupancy ratio of the second elevator car is determined to be less than the occupancy ratio of the first elevator car.
Claim 5: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method where the second elevator car is dispatched based on the number of occupants within the second elevator car, as stated above. Motion data from the plurality of elevator cars is disclosed in Akkina et al. to be retrieved via a position reference system (113) including a current location (position), travel speed (velocity) of the plurality of elevator cars (page 2 paragraph [0019]). This reference fails to disclose the motion data to include a travel direction of the plurality of elevator cars, and the second elevator car to be dispatched to the first destination location further based on the motion data of the second elevator car relative to the plurality of elevator cars.
However Matsuzawa et al. teaches a method, where retrieved motion data includes a travel direction of the plurality of elevator cars, and a second elevator car is dispatched to a first destination location when the second elevator car is nearest the call from the first destination location and situated forward of the second elevator car (column 4 lines 49-57). Therefore the second elevator car is dispatched based on the motion data of the second elevator car relative to the plurality of elevator cars.
Given the teachings of Matsuzawa 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 Akkina et al. with providing the motion data to include a travel direction of the plurality of elevator cars, and the second elevator car to be dispatched to the first destination location further based on the motion data of the second elevator car relative to the plurality of elevator cars. Doing so would “eliminate inefficient operation … and ensures quite efficient operation of the elevator cars for calls originating from all the floors” as taught in Matsuzawa et al. (column 4 lines 44-48).
Claim 6: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method as stated above, where a call including a floor location is disclosed in Akkina et al. to be initiated from a mobile device (220) of an occupant using a global positioning system or other location technology (page 4 paragraph [0042]). The occupant and therefore the mobile device then is at the first destination location. A notification (prompt) is transmitted to the mobile device of the occupant (passenger) generating the call at the fist destination location, which identifies arrival of the second elevator car in substitute of the first elevator car (page 4 paragraphs [0043]-[0044]). Therefore the notification is transmitted to the first destination location.
Claims 7 and 19: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method and system as stated above, where prior to dispatching the first elevator car to the first destination location to pick up the additional occupant at the first destination location, a call is disclosed in Akkina et al. to be received at the dispatch controller for at least one of the plurality of elevator cars from the first destination location, and the number of occupants within the first elevator car is determined to be less than a limit for the first elevator car (page 3 paragraph [0035]-[0036]). The number of occupants within the first elevator car is further shown in Faruki et al. to be determined to be less than a number of occupants within each of the plurality of elevator cars in order to determine a more favorable elevator car for call assignment (column 2 lines 42-44).
Claim 8: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method as stated above, where a call including a floor location is disclosed in Akkina et al. to be initiated from a mobile device (220) of an occupant using a global positioning system or other location technology (page 4 paragraph [0042]). The occupant and therefore the mobile device then is at the first destination location. The call from the first destination location is assigned to the first elevator car, and a first notification (prompt) is transmitted to the mobile device of the occupant (passenger) generating the call at the fist destination location, which identifies assignment of the first elevator car (page 4 paragraph [0043]). Therefore the notification is transmitted to the first destination location.
Claim 9: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method where the first elevator car is directed to the second destination location, as stated above. A second notification is disclosed in Akkina et al. to be transmitted to the mobile device of the occupant at the first destination location, which identifies assignment of the second elevator car (page 4 paragraph [0043]). The assignment is in response to directing the first elevator car to the second destination location and dispatching the second elevator car to the first destination location (page 4 paragraphs [0038]-[0039]).
Claim 11: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method where the second elevator car is directed to the first destination in response to assignment of the first elevator car to the first destination location being cancelled, as stated above.
Claim 14: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a method as stated above, where prior to stopping the first elevator car at the intermediate location, a call for at least one of the plurality of elevator cars is shown in Matsuzawa et al. to be received from the intermediate location, and the first elevator car is directed to the intermediate location in response to the call (column 14 lines 46-50).
Claim 16: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a system as stated above, where prior to dispatching the first elevator car to the second destination location, the dispatch controller is disclosed in Akkina et al. to determine and compare a number of occupants within the plurality of elevator cars and a maximum occupancy capacity (total occupancy limit) of the plurality of elevator cars (pages 3-4 paragraphs [0037]-[0038]). Therefore an occupancy ratio between a number of occupants within each of the plurality of elevator cars and a maximum occupancy capacity of each of the plurality of elevator cars is determined, and the occupancy ratio of each of the plurality of elevator cars relative to one another are compared. The first elevator car is determined to have a maximum occupancy capacity and the second elevator car is determined to have less than a maximum occupancy capacity (pages 3-4 paragraphs [0037]-[0038]). Therefore the occupancy ratio of the second elevator car is determined to be less than the occupancy ratio of the first elevator car and the plurality of elevator cars.
Claim 17: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a system as stated above, where at least one motion controller (machine 111) is disclosed in Akkina et al. to include a position reference system (113), is communicatively coupled to each of the plurality of elevator cars, and generates motion data (velocity, absolute position) for each elevator car (page 2 paragraph [0019]).
Claim 18: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a system where the second elevator car is dispatched based on the number of occupants in the second elevator car, as stated above. Prior to dispatching the first elevator car to the second destination location, motion data from the plurality of elevator cars is disclosed in Akkina et al. to be received at the dispatch controller from the position reference system (113) of motion controller, including a current location (position), travel speed (velocity) of the plurality of elevator cars (page 2 paragraph [0019]). This reference fails to disclose the motion data to include a travel direction of the plurality of elevator cars, and the second elevator car to be dispatched to the first destination location further based on the motion data of the second elevator car relative to the plurality of elevator cars.
However Matsuzawa et al. teaches a system, where retrieved motion data includes a travel direction of the plurality of elevator cars, and a second elevator car is dispatched to a first destination location when the second elevator car is nearest the call from the first destination location and situated forward of the second elevator car (column 4 lines 49-57). Therefore the second elevator car is dispatched based on the motion data of the second elevator car relative to the plurality of elevator cars.
Given the teachings of Matsuzawa 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 system disclosed in Akkina et al. with providing the motion data to include a travel direction of the plurality of elevator cars, and the second elevator car to be dispatched to the first destination location further based on the motion data of the second elevator car relative to the plurality of elevator cars. Doing so would “eliminate inefficient operation … and ensures quite efficient operation of the elevator cars for calls originating from all the floors” as taught in Matsuzawa et al. (column 4 lines 44-48).
Claim 20: Akkina et al. modified by Matsuzawa et al. and Faruki et al. discloses a system where the first elevator car is directed to the second destination location, as stated above. A call including a floor location is disclosed in Akkina et al. to be initiated from a mobile device (220) of an occupant using a global positioning system or other location technology (page 4 paragraph [0042]). The occupant and therefore the mobile device then is at the first destination location. The call from the first destination location is assigned to the first elevator car, and a first notification (prompt) is transmitted to the mobile device of an additional occupant (passenger) generating the call at the fist destination location, which identifies assignment of the first elevator car before arrival at the first destination location, and therefore in response to dispatching the first elevator car to the first destination location to pick up the additional occupant (page 4 paragraph [0043]-[0044]). Therefore the notification is transmitted to the first destination location. A second notification is transmitted to the mobile device of the additional occupant at the first destination location, which identifies assignment of the second elevator car (page 4 paragraph [0043]). The assignment then is also in response to dispatching the second elevator car to the to the first destination location to pick up the additional occupant.
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 May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights