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
The amendment filed 01/09/2026 has been entered. As directed, claims 9-12 and 14 have
been amended, claim 15 has been canceled, claim 16 has been withdrawn, and no claim is added. Thus claims 9-14 remain pending in the application. The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 11/04/2025. However, new rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) has been made in the current office action based on the amendment.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the Applicant’s argued claim interpretation in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment,”
Applicant argues:
…
When considering claim 9 as a whole, as required, the claim sets forth an improvement to the technology of architectural model and simulation technology.
Consideration of improvements is relevant to the eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See, e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d
1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
MPEP Section 2106.05(a) II (emphasis added).
The improvement is a technical solution to a technical problem, as explained in the specification. As explained in the specification,
[i]n planning and construction of high-rise buildings, information sharing among parties has been promoted by utilizing architectural model data called building information modeling (BIM) data or the like. The architectural model data is data including a plurality of architectural model parts, and the architectural model parts are data indicating building materials constituting a high-rise building, facilities such as elevators, and the like.
Para. [0002] of the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application (US 2022/0414278). Conventional technologies, such as Patent Literature 1, performs an evaluation using a simulation technique using architectural model data incorporating architectural model parts of an elevator as an input. See para. [0004]. "In addition, Patent Literature 2 discloses a device that reproduces detailed movements, determinations, and the like of a user at an elevator platform by a technique for simulating use of the elevator." Para. [0005].
However, in the method of simulating a motion of a person using the system disclosed in Patent Literature 1, an action of waiting at a platform or an action of orderly boarding when a large number of people use an elevator is not considered.
In Patent Literature 2, in order to reproduce the orderly boarding action at the elevator,
it is necessary to input data of the front-of-line position at the elevator platform.
Paras. [0008] and [0009]. However, in there is a need to "finely simulate the action of waiting at the platform or the action of orderly boarding when using the elevator without manually additionally inputting the front-of-line position or the like." Para. [0010]. The presently claimed invention provides a system for achieving this improvement to the architectural model and simulation technology by estimating a front-of-line position that is a position at which people who use elevators start to line up at an elevator platform, converting this data to a file format to be used for a simulation and then executing a simulation using the front-of-line position and the architectural model data to estimate movements of people at the elevator platform. See para. [0011]; see also para. [0039], for example, which describes that the front-of-line position information is input to the simulation execution unit 103 and at this time, "data obtained by converting the architectural model data 111 read by the architectural model data reading unit 101 into a simulation executable format is also input to the simulation execution unit 103."
The simulation execution unit 103 estimates detailed movements of people at the elevator platform and stores the simulation result in the simulation result data 113 of the storage unit 110. Note that the simulation result may be directly output and displayed on the display unit 130 without being stored in the storage unit 110.
Para. [0040].
Therefore, the presently claimed invention, includes additional elements, such as executing the simulation, which amounts to a practical application of the alleged abstract idea. That is, the alleged abstract idea is used in a practical way to improve architectural model and simulation technology. As further described in the specification, in the architectural model data assistance system, it is possible to realize the architectural model data assistance system that estimates the front-of-line position by the measurement unit 140, uses the estimated front-of-line position and the architectural model data as inputs, and finely simulates the action of waiting at the platform or the action of orderly boarding when using the elevator in the input architectural model without manually additionally inputting the front-of-line position or the like. See para. [0096].
That is, the presently claimed invention sets forth a computer-implemented specific technical processes under technically relevant conditions.
The improvement is also recited in the claims. For example, claim 9 recites "estimate a front-of-line position that is a position at which people who use elevators start to line up at an elevator platform on a basis of the read architectural model data, and a first position determined based on a distance from an entrance to the elevator platform, and execute a simulation using the front-of-line position and the architectural model data to estimate movements of people at the elevator platform."
In this respect, we note that this potential technical effect solves the technical problem of needing to manually input the front-of-line position to the simulation and, in doing so, goes beyond the alleged abstract idea and goes beyond merely using a computer as a tool.
The MPEP also states:
In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir.2018)).
Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Id.
Even further, the improvement set forth in claim 9 is not to the alleged abstract idea itself. Additionally, this is not a case like Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) where the computer is merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.
Thus, Applicant's claim 9 is not directed to an abstract idea because claim 9 includes additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea demonstrated by a particular improvement to architectural model and simulation technology. Therefore, under the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, claim 9 is not directed to an abstract idea and therefore the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn.
(see Response filed 01/09/2026 [pages 7-11]).
With respect to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees that “claim 9 includes additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea demonstrated by a particular improvement to architectural model and simulation technology.”
As explained in MPEP 2106.05(a), II.: "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." (emphasis added).
MPEP 2106.05(a), I.: Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) …
Further, In order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), “first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” In other words, the specification should describe the claimed improvement over the background invention or existing technology, and the claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements (emphasis added) by specifying how the claimed improvement perform the additional element different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
Regarding claimed additional limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two. Please refer to the current Office Action for the details of analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Step 2A, Prong Two. However, the additional limitations are merely adding a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering activity, and merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
The additional limitations do not specify how the alleged improvement performs the additional elements in a manner that is different from existing technology, functioning of a computer or existing technical field or any known technical field. For example, how the claimed limitation of executing a simulation using the front-of-line position and the architectural model data to estimate movements of people at the evertor platform are technological distinct from generic or conventional computer functions such as executing a simulation step. The claim does not provide any details indicating that the simulation using any non-conventional techniques or specifies any technical improvement over known data processing methods. In contrast, the claimed limitation merely recites executing a simulation step at a high level of generality would not consider as an improvement in the functioning of computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, and improving information or parameters input (e.g., estimated front-of-line position) to a simulation does not provide an improvement to the technological operation of the simulation technology.
Further, although Applicant asserts that the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem, the alleged improvement reflects to the abstract idea itself (i.e., estimate a front-of-line position) rather than a technological improvement in how the computer or simulation system operates. Therefore, when consider the claim as whole, the additional elements merely apply the generic computer functionality with abstract idea, and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding Step 2B, for similar reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims do not recite any unconventional computer architecture, specialized algorithm, or specific technical implementation more than applying generic computing component to execute a simulation. Furthermore, the instant specification describes the simulation step as a known technique. For example, [0018], “Note that the simulation in the simulation execution unit 103 can be performed, for example, by using a known simulation technique disclosed in "Development of pedestrian flow simulator for smooth people movement in buildings" (FUJIWARA Masayasu, TORIYABE Satoru, and HATORI Takahiro) presented by the inventors in "The Proceedings of the Elevator, Escalator and Amusement Rides Conference" of The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers held on January 19, 2018.”
Therefore, the claim merely applies a known simulation technique to process estimated positional information, and does not represent an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons discussed above, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not
persuasive. The claims are directed to abstract ideas (mental process and/or mathematical concepts), do not integrate judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-14 have been considered but are moot because the
new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The newly applied reference Lin US20090057068A1 teaches the newly amended limitation of claim 9, “a first position determined based on a distance from an entrance to the elevator platform.” Therefore, the combination of Mihashi JP2014010659A in view of To US20190080178 A1 and “Development of Pedestrian Flow Simulator for Smooth People Movement in Buildings” by Fujiwara, published in 2018 and Lin US20090057068A1 teach or suggest the amended limitations of claim 9, and the rejection of claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
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:
“measurement unit” in claim 11. This limitation uses generic placeholder " measurement unit" (Prong A); the term "measurement unit" is modified by functional language "measures a situation of the elevator platform" (Prong B); and the term "measurement unit" is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation "a measurement unit that measures a situation of the elevator platform …" invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In the instant specification [0043], “Note that an image sensor such as a camera, a depth sensor, an infrared sensor, or the like is used as the measurement unit 140.” Therefore, the “measurement unit” is interpreted as sensor, and equivalents thereof.
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 9-14 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.
Claim 9 recites “a first position determined based on a distance from an entrance to the elevator platform,” which renders the claim indefinite because the limitation does not clearly specify how the recited distance from the entrance to the elevator platform is used to determine the first position. For example, it is unclear if the first position is determined based on a distance measured from a point of the entrance to a point of the elevator platform, from a boundary of the entrance to a boundary of the elevator platform, or from the entrance to some other location of the elevator platform. For the purpose of substantive examination, the examiner presumes that “a first position determined based on a distance from an entrance to the elevator platform” as a first position determined based on a distance measured from an entrance to a location of the elevator platform.
The remaining claims 10-14 are dependent upon claim 9 listed above ,and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claim(s) 9-14 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
judicial exception an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated
the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019, as well as subsequent USPTO eligibility guidance updates,
and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?"
Yes, Claims 9-14 are directed to system and fall within the statutory category of machine.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry "Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?" we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 9: The limitations of “… read the architectural model data …, estimate a front-of-line position that is a position at which people who use elevators start to line up at an elevator platform on a basis of the read architectural model data, and a first position determined based on a distance from an entrance to the elevator platform …” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of specification, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, a person is capable of observing and analyzing spatial data representing the layout of an elevator platform, including the positions and shapes of elevators and the location of the entrance, mentally determining a first position by evaluating the distance from the entrance to the elevator platform, and mentally determine a location where elevator users would begin to line up at the elevator platform based on the spatial data and the identified first position. The steps include observation, evaluation, judgment, and decision-making processes that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Examiner note: the limitation does not recite a specific technological mechanism, algorithm, or technical implementation that limits how the determination is performed. Therefore, the limitation does not include a constraint that would preclude performance in the human mind or with pen and paper, and is reasonably considered as a mental process. See MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
In MPEP 2106.04(II)(B): A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions. For example, claim 4 at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010) recited two abstract ideas, and the claims at issue in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012) recited two laws of nature. However, these claims were analyzed by the Supreme Court in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception, such as those in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976.
As explained in MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on selected information” are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a “process of organizing information through mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea); and Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of “managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results” as an abstract idea).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A): A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
Further, MPEP recites: “For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Claim 9: The limitations of “… estimate a front-of-line position that is a position at which people who use elevators start to line up at an elevator platform on a basis of the read architectural model data, and a first position determined based on a distance from an entrance to the elevator platform…”, when given its with broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of specification, can be considered to recite mathematical concepts. For example, the instant specification describes the estimation process in terms of distance calculations and geometric relationships. For example, paragraph [0025], “… the distance to the doorway 400 is obtained at each position of a scanning target, and a point 433 closest to the doorway 400 is calculated as "p1" (step 5302). Paragraph [0027], “… scanning is performed along a dotted line 434 in the same direction as the direction 431"d" of the doors from the position "p1" of the point 433, a point closest to the doorway 400 is calculated, and this point 435 is set as "p2" (step S303).” The estimation of the front-of-line (p2) and the determination of the first position (p1) using calculating and comparing distances between spatial positions, which constitutes mathematical relationships and calculations. Therefore, the limitation recites mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationship and calculations) that define or estimate the front-of-line position and the first position, which fall within the category of mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Therefore, claim 9 recites judicial exceptions. The claim has been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 9: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements: “An architectural model data assistance system comprising: a storage unit that stores architectural model data and simulation data; a processor; and a memory storing instructions, that when executed by the processor, configures the processor to:,” which is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as tool to perform an abstract idea with the broad reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Further, the following additional elements: “execute a simulation using the front-of-line position and the architectural model data to estimate movements of people at the elevator platform,” which is mere adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and applying a generic computing component to perform data processing or simulation function to identifying movements of people at the elevator platform with the front-of-line position and the architectural model data at high level of generality is simply the act of instructing a computer to perform generic data processing function, which is merely an instruction to apply a computer to the judicial exception and does not integrate judicial exception into practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f). It is also merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., simulation environment) or field of use. Therefore, limiting an abstract idea to a generic software and/or simulator, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Therefore, "Do the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 9 not only recites a judicial exception, but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 9: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, …; ii. Performing repetitive calculations, … iii. Electronic recordkeeping, … (updating an activity log). iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory,…
Further, the instant specification describes the simulation step as a known technique. For example, [0018], “Note that the simulation in the simulation execution unit 103 can be performed, for example, by using a known simulation technique disclosed in "Development of pedestrian flow simulator for smooth people movement in buildings" (FUJIWARA Masayasu, TORIYABE Satoru, and HATORI Takahiro) presented by the inventors in "The Proceedings of the Elevator, Escalator and Amusement Rides Conference" of The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers held on January 19, 2018.”
Therefore, the claim merely applies a known simulation technique to process estimated positional information, and does not represent an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, "Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 10-14 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself (and/or mathematical operations) or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 10-14 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 9.
Claim 10 recites “The architectural model data assistance system according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to estimate the front-of-line position on a basis of a shape of the elevator platform and a positional relationship of the elevators.”
The limitation further defines the estimation based on a shape of the elevator platform and a positional relationship of the elevators; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process and mathematical concept. Therefore, the claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11 recites “The architectural model data assistance system according to claim 9, further comprising: a measurement unit that measures a situation of the elevator platform in the elevator platform, wherein the processor is configured to estimate the front-of-line position on a basis of elevator platform data obtained by measurement by the measurement unit.”
The limitation further defines the estimation based on elevator platform data obtained by measurement; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process, mathematical concept, and recite insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering (i.e., collect elevator platform data by measurement unit), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 12 recites “The architectural model data assistance system according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to calculate a density of people at each point of the elevator platform on a basis of measured data, and sets a point where the density exceeds a preset predetermined threshold as the front-of-line position.”
The limitation further defines data measurement by calculating a density of people and set front-of-line position when the density exceeds a prese predetermined threshold; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (i.e., observing and analyzing density of people, determining front-of-line position when the density exceeds a predetermined amounts), and mathematical concept (e.g., instant specification [0051]-[0052], i.e., density is calculated). Therefore, the claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 13 recites “The architectural model data assistance system according to claim 12, wherein the predetermined threshold is variably set depending on a time zone or the front-of-line position.”
The limitation further defines the predetermined threshold can be vary based on different time; therefore, it merely an extension of mental process (i.e., observing and analyzing density of people, determining front-of-line position when the density exceeds a predetermined amounts at different time). Therefore, the claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 14 recites “The architectural model data assistance system according to claim 11, wherein the measurement unit includes one or more sensors selected from the group consisting of an image sensor, a depth sensor, and an infrared sensor.”
The limitation further defines measurement unit includes one or more sensors selected from the group of an image sensor, a depth sensor, and an infrared sensor refer to claim 11 for measuring/collecting data; therefore, it mere recite insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering (i.e., collect elevator platform data by measurement unit), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihashi
JP2014010659A in view of To US20190080178A1 and “Development of Pedestrian Flow Simulator for Smooth People Movement in Buildings” by Fujiwara, published in 2018 and Lin US20090057068A1.
Claim 9, Mihashi teaches An architectural model data assistance system (Fig.2, terminal device 100 and server device 200. [0012] As shown in FIG. 2, the BIM system … includes a server device 200 capable of providing information such as a three-dimensional model of an elevator (i.e., BIM parts of the elevator), and one or more servers.) comprising:
a storage unit that stores architectural model data and simulation data (Fig.2, storage unit 106; [0025], “The BIM model database 106a is a BIM model storage unit that stores a BIM model of a building.” [0026], “The object information database 106b is an object information storage unit that stores object information related to movable human objects in a BIM model of a building. …, the movement conditions include the number of human objects, transit points, moving means (for example, use of stairs, elevator (use of elevators, passenger conveyors (including escalators or moving walkways), etc.), departure time, transit time, arrival time, The object information may include at least one of a moving speed, a using moving path, and a moving pattern, …” [0033], “In addition, on the layout screen displayed by the screen display unit 102d, the motion analysis unit 102f simulates the movement of the human object and the motion of the BIM parts of the elevator based on the object information stored in the object information database 106b. It is an analysis means.” – Examiner note: the reference teaches movement conditions and human object simulation data (e.g., number of humans, movement speed, movement path, and movement pattern), which are input parameters used by motion analysis unit to perform simulation);
a processor; and a memory storing instructions, that when executed by the processor, configures the processor ([0017], “The control unit 202 also has a control program such as an operating system (OS), a program defining various processing procedures and the like, and an internal memory for storing necessary data. Then, the control unit 202 performs information processing for executing various processes according to these programs …”[0027] The control unit 102 also has a control program such as an operating system (OS), a program defining various processing procedures and the like, and an internal memory for storing necessary data. Then, the control unit 102 performs information processing for executing various processes according to these programs ...”) to:
read the architectural model data stored in the storage unit ([0029], “The integrated modeling unit 102b is integrated modeling means for creating an integrated BIM model in which the BIM parts of the elevator transmitted from the server device 200 are incorporated into the BIM model of the building stored in the BIM model database 106a.” [0043], “Then, the integrated modeling unit 102b of the terminal device 100 performs the BIM parts of the single or plural elevators received by the processing of the control unit 102 in step SA-5 with the BIM model of the building stored in the BIM model database 106a.” – Examiner note: the reference teaches retrieving BIM model data stored in the BIM model database (106a) and incorporating BIM parts received from the server device into the stored building model, which requires the system to access and read the architectural model data stored in the storage unit),
estimate a front-of-line position that is a position at which people who use elevators start to line up at an elevator platform on a basis of the read architectural model data (see [0027], [0029] and [0043]), and a first position determined based on a distance from an entrance to the elevator platform, and
execute a simulation using the front-of-line position and the architectural model data to estimate movements of people at the elevator platform ([0032], “… the movement route generation unit 102e is a movement route generation unit that generates a movement route of the human object in the integrated BIM model based on the object information stored in the object information database 106b. Specifically, the movement route generation unit 102e uses the movement conditions and the network data in the BIM model included in the object information to determine the start point and destination point from the start point that includes at least the start point and the destination point of each human object. Generate a travel route to Here, the movement conditions include the number of human objects, transit points, moving means (for example, use of stairs, elevator (use of elevators, passenger conveyors (including escalators or moving walkways), etc.), departure time, transit time, arrival time, The movement condition may include at least one of a movement speed, a utilization movement path, and a movement pattern.” Examiner note: generating movement routes for human objects within the BIM model based on movement conditions constitutes simulating pedestrian movement within the building environment).
However, Mihashi fails to teach estimate a front-of-line position that is a position at which people who use elevators start to line up at an elevator platform, and a first position determined based on a distance from an entrance to the elevator platform.
To teaches estimate a front-of-line position that is a position at which people who use elevators start to line up at an elevator platform ([0035], “… The device forms a set of nodes whereby a given node represents one or more of the identified people located within the physical location. The device represents a person queue as an ordered list of nodes from the set of nodes and adds a particular one of the set of nodes to the list based on the particular node being within a predefined distance to the focal point of interest. The device adds one or more nodes to the list based on the added node being within an angle and distance range trailing a forward direction associated with at least one node in the list. The device provides an indication of the person queue to an interface.” [0062], “the system may assess image data captured by one or more cameras in the area to identify point of interest 802 (e.g., a cashier, a restroom, etc.), people 400f-400h, and object 804 (e.g., a shopping cart).” [0070], “… the device may represent a person queue as an ordered list of nodes from the set of nodes, as described in greater detail above. Such an ordered list may, for example, be ordered based on the distance or number of nodes between a given node and the point of interest.” Examiner note: the reference teaches that the system detects people and represents them as nodes in a queue ordered relative to a defined point of interest. The node located closest to the point of interest is placed first in the ordered list, thereby identifying the first person in the queue, which corresponds to the front-of-line position).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mihashi to incorporate the teachings of To and applying identification of the first person in a queue by determining which detected individual is closest to a defined point of interest and ordering detected people based on spatial distance relative to that point in order to identify the front position of a queue near an elevator platform. In this case, Mihashi teaches executing a simulation using architectural model data and movement characteristics of people to estimate movement of people within a building environment. To teaches representing detected people as nodes and determining queue order by identifying the node closest to a point of interest and arranging additional nodes based on spatial distance relative to that point. The combination of teachings would predictably provide the benefit of improving the accuracy of estimating where people begin forming a queue and how groups of people move and gather near elevator platforms within the simulated environment.
However, Mihashi and To fail to teach a position at which people who use elevators start to line up at an elevator platform.
Fujiwara teaches a position at which people who use elevators start to line up at an elevator platform (Figure.4, Head position of a queue; Figure 5, Destination floor registration devices; Figure.9, first two passengers (yellow) at the front-of-line position).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mihashi and To to incorporate the teachings of Fujiwara and applying passengers forming a queue at an elevator platform in order to identify the starting position of a queue at an elevator platform. In this case, Mihashi teaches executing a simulation using architectural model data and movement characteristics of people to estimate movement of people within a building environment. To teaches representing detected people as nodes and determining queue order by identifying the node closest to a point of interest and arranging additional nodes based on spatial distance relative to that point. Fujiwara teaches that passengers waiting for elevators form queues at elevator platforms with a head position represent the start of the queue. The combination of teachings would predictably provide benefit of improving the accuracy of estimating where elevator passengers begin forming queues and how groups of people gather and move near elevator platforms within the simulated environment.
However, Mihashi and To and Fujiwara fail to teach a first position determined based on a distance from an entrance to the elevator platform.
Lin teaches a first position determined based on a distance from an entrance to the elevator platform ([0023], “… two regions, R1 and R2. Region R1 is nearly co-extensive with the field of view of video camera 12, and defines the area in which video processor 16 tracks objects. Region R2 defines an area around elevator doors 20, approximately coextensive with the area in which elevator passengers will wait for elevator cab 18 to arrive. Rather than continuing to track objects within region R2, video processor 16 determines that any object that enters region R2 on an appropriate trajectory and not from inside the elevator cab 18 is most likely a passenger waiting for an elevator. This allows video processor 16 to maintain an accurate count of the number of passengers waiting for elevator cab 18.” Examiner note: the reference teaches that region R2 defines an area around elevator doors 20 corresponding to the area where passengers wait for the elevator cab 18. The elevator doors represent an entrance to the elevator platform. Region R2 is spatially defined outward from the elevator doors and corresponds to a position determined based on distance from elevator entrance to a certain location of elevator platform.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mihashi and To and Fujiwara to incorporate the teachings of Lin and applying determination of position based on spatial distance from elevator doors to a certain location of elevator platform in order to identify passenger locations relative to an elevator entrance. In this cases, Mihashi teaches executing a simulation using architectural model data and movement characteristics of people to estimate movement of people within a building environment. To teaches representing detected people as nodes and determining queue order by identifying the node closest to a point of interest and arranging additional nodes based on spatial distance relative to that point. Fujiwara teaches that passengers waiting for elevators form queues at elevator platforms with a head position represent the start of the queue. Lin teaches defining a spatial position around elevator doors corresponding to the position where passengers wait for an elevator. The combination of teachings would predictably provide the benefit of more accurately identifying and monitoring passenger positions near elevator entrance, thereby improving queue position estimation and passenger flow analysis for elevator operation system.
Claim 10, Mihashi fails to teach, but To teaches The architectural model data assistance system according to claim 9,
wherein the processor is configured to estimate the front-of-line position ([0035], “… a device identifies, from image data captured by one or more cameras of a physical location, a focal point of interest and people located within the physical location. The device forms a set of nodes whereby a given node represents one or more of the identified people located within the physical location. The device represents a person queue as an ordered list of nodes from the set of nodes and adds a particular one of the set of nodes to the list based on the particular node being within a predefined distance to the focal point of interest …” – Examiner note: forming a queue (ordered list) and identifying which node (person) is closest to the focal point of interest. Fig.8; [0062], “the system may assess image data captured by one or more cameras in the area to identify point of interest 802 (e.g., a cashier, a restroom, etc.), people 400f - 400 h, and object 804 (e.g., a shopping cart).” [0063]. “The system may detect that person 400f is within a predefined distance of point of interest 802 and add the node that represents person 400f to a list that represents person queue 800.” [0070], “… the device may represent a person queue as an ordered list of nodes from the set of nodes, as described in greater detail above. Such an ordered list may, for example, be ordered based on the distance or number of nodes between a given node and the point of interest.” Examiner note: the reference teaches that the system determines which detected person (node) is located closest to a defined point of interest, and that person is added first to the ordered list represent the start to line up in the queue [0035], and in figure. 8 of the reference, person 400f is shown as the individual located nearest to the defined point of interest 802 (i.e., the position of person 400f represent the front-of-line position of the queue and determined by the system (i.e., front-of-line position estimation unit) [0062] , and further teaches the device estimates queue order includes the front position based on spatial distance relative to the point of interest [0070]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mihashi to incorporate the teachings of To and applying queue analysis device/system to identify a focal point of interest and the first person in the queue on a basis of spatial distance relative to the point of interest in order to improve the accuracy of estimating people waiting positions and determining the start point of the queue in the building.
However, Mihashi and To fail to teach a basis of a shape of the elevator platform and a positional relationship of the elevators.
Fujiwara teaches a basis of a shape of the elevator platform and a positional relationship of the elevators (see figures 4, 5, 9 and 10 illustrates shape of the elevator platform and a positional relationship of the elevators).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mihashi and To to incorporate the teachings of Fujiwara and applying people waiting positions including a start point of a queue at an elevator platform based on a shape of the elevator platform and a positional relationship of the elevators in order to improve the accuracy of estimating people waiting positions and determining the start point of the queue for elevator boarding management at the elevator platform in the building.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihashi and To
and Fujiwara and Lin as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Witczak US20170190544 A1.
Claim 11, Mihashi and To and Fujiwara and Lin fail to teach, but Witczak teaches The architectural model data assistance system according to claim 9, further comprising:
a measurement unit that measures a situation of the elevator platform in the elevator platform (See Fig.6; [0013], “… collecting the crowd parameter includes collecting the crowd parameter using a sensor, wherein the sensor is at least one of an acoustic sensor, an image sensor, a video sensor, a weight sensor, a movement sensor, a location sensor, an infrared sensor, and a depth sensor.” [0058], “FIG. 6A is a top view of an elevator lobby 600 in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. The elevator lobby 600 includes elevator bays 615, and kiosk 605. In each of the elevator bays 615 are multiple elevator doors 610. FIG. 6A also provides visual representation of crowd parameters in the form of shaded portions that indicate crowd density values that exist at specific points in each of the elevator bays 615 near the elevator doors 610. For example, FIG. 6A show a low traffic area 611 in front of an elevator door. The elevator lobby 600 also includes a medium density traffic area 622 and a high density traffic area 633. The more shaded boxes represented more crowding and the darker shading shows longer waiting at those particular points. These visually represented crowd parameters help visualize the information that can be collected using a number of different sensors that provide the crowd parameters that are used by a system controller to generate a call assignment for a user and to controller the elevators themselves as well.”),
wherein the processor is configured to estimate the front-of-line position on a basis of elevator platform data obtained by measurement by the measurement unit ([0065], “A system and method in accordance with one or more embodiments as described above can provide equal queuing distribution among the group, monitoring or estimating queuing on bay entry that may prevent other passengers from entering the space, variations of assignment based on knowledge about occupancy in arriving cars, assign car/door with zero or less counter traffic to reduce boarding time, and/or monitoring assignments for groups that share bays.” Examiner note: a POSITA would understand that the phrase “estimating queuing on elevator bay entry” refers to determining or predicting where passengers begin to line up for elevator boarding (i.e., the front of line position) at the entry bay of the elevator platform by controller of system, the estimation may rely on parameters such as the crowd density value of passengers detected near each elevator door and the spatial relationship (geometry ) of the elevator bays, which can be derived from the measured elevator platform data obtained by the sensors).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mihashi and To and Fujiwara and Lin to incorporate the teachings of Witczak and applying a system that estimates queuing on bay entry at an elevator platform in order to improve the management of elevator boarding by predicting where passengers start to queue, allowing for dynamic adjustment of boarding control, reduction of crowding, and optimization of passenger flow at the elevator platform.
Claim 14, Mihashi and To and Fujiwara and Lin fail to teach, but Witczak teaches The architectural model data assistance system according to claim 11,
wherein the measurement unit includes one or more sensors selected from the group consisting of an image sensor, a depth sensor, and an infrared sensor ([0013], “… collecting the crowd parameter includes collecting the crowd parameter using a sensor, wherein the sensor is at least one of an acoustic sensor, an image sensor, a video sensor, a weight sensor, a movement sensor, a location sensor, an infrared sensor, and a depth sensor.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mihashi and To and Fujiwara and Lin to incorporate the teachings of Witczak and applying a measurement system that uses one or more of sensors in order to detect and measure the situation of the elevator platform.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihashi and To and
Fujiwara and Lin and Witczak as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gyger US20160224844A1.
Claim 12, Mihashi and To and Fujiwara and Lin fail to teach, but Witczak teaches The architectural model data assistance system according to claim 11,
wherein the processor is configured to calculate a density of people at each point of the elevator platform on a basis of measured data (see Witczak; [0053], “In one or more embodiments the crowd parameter can include, but is not limited to, a volume parameter, a mass parameter, a location parameter, a speed parameter, a timing parameter, a scheduling parameter, a crowd information parameter, data from the call request, or a combination thereof.” [0054], “According to other embodiments, the controller 325 can generate the call assignment based on the crowd parameter by being further configured to collect the crowd parameter, process the crowd parameter, create the call assignment and populating the call assignment with data from the processed crowd parameter, and store the call assignment in a storage medium of the controller.” [0057], “According to other embodiments, the controller 525 collects the crowd parameter by being further configured to collect the crowd parameter using any one or more of the sensors as shown in FIG. 5. The one or more sensors can be an acoustic sensor, an image sensor, a video sensor, a weight sensor, a movement sensor, a location sensor, an infrared sensor, a depth sensor, or a combination of sensors, but is not limited thereto. According to other embodiments, the sensor or sensors used to collected data for the crowd parameter can be any known type of sensor.” [0058], “FIG. 6A is a top view of an elevator lobby 600 … FIG. 6A show a low traffic area 611 in front of an elevator door. The elevator lobby 600 also includes a medium density traffic area 622 and a high density traffic area 633. The more shaded boxes represented more crowding and the darker shading shows longer waiting at those particular points. These visually represented crowd parameters help visualize the information that can be collected using a number of different sensors that provide the crowd parameters that are used by a system controller to generate a call assignment for a user and to controller the elevators themselves as well.” Examiner note: the reference teaches the controller working with one or more sensors function as the measurement unit that collects measured data regarding crowed parameters within the elevator lobby, and processing the crowd parameters to generated and populate a call assignment based on the collected data constitutes a calculation of density values, and identifies and distinguishes different density for each point of the elevator bays (Fig.6A), and demonstrating that the crowd density is determined at multiple locations of the elevator platform), and
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mihashi and To and Fujiwara and Lin to incorporate the teachings of Witczak and applying sensor-based measurement system and processing system that determines crowd density information from measured sensor data within the different location of elevator lobby in order to allow the system to monitor passenger distribution and detect congestion regions that improve elevator boarding efficiency and reducing waiting time at the elevator platform.
However, Mihashi and To and Fujiwara and Lin and Witczak fail to teach sets a point where the density exceeds a preset predetermined threshold as the front-of-line position.
Gyger teaches sets a point where the density exceeds a preset predetermined threshold as the front-of-line position ([0057], “The criterion can be represented by a threshold value, wherein objects are taken into account as member of the queue only if the speed thereof does not exceed the threshold value.” [0060], “Proceeding from a pixel (in the present case from a field in the first map), the respectively adjacent pixels or fields are tested to establish whether they satisfy a specific criterion (in the present case: whether the field has a certain appearance density). If so, these fields are added to the field set.” [0122], “14. In order to ascertain all possible ROIs 19 which intersect the defined exit region 2, a flood fill process is carried out, which successively uses all points of the exit region as a starting point if the corresponding point had not already been reached in a previous flood fill step. The validity function of flood fill checks the respective neighboring fields for a minimum value in the definitive appearance map and an absence in the stop mask (step 5.14).” [0132], “After the queue region (ROI) has been ascertained, the free queue can be analyzed. For this purpose, a map is created which covers the ROI and represents a binning of the average waiting time per field in the preceding period, that is to say how long persons who were situated in a specific field had already been waiting on average. The binning in bins of a size of 10 seconds, for example, results in a map comprising regions arranged sequentially along the queue. This is useful for the definition of the neighborhood within the queue and for defining the start of the queue.” Examiner note: the reference teaches a threshold value that severs as a selection criterion for determining which detected objects are considered members of the queue, filtering parameters exceed the threshold [0057], testing each “field” (i.e., point or region) for appearance density (i.e., identifying points where the “density” meets or exceeds the predefined condition [0060], using flood-fill process beginning at the exit region and expanding only into neighboring fields whose appearance density values exceed a minimum value (threshold), delineating a continuous region bounded by such threshold values [0122], and defines the start of the queue, corresponding to positions with the shortest waiting times, as the identified threshold-based region to a front-of-line position [0132]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mihashi and To and Fujiwara and Lin and Witczak to incorporate the teachings of Gyger and applying flood fill method with appearance density and threshold based region identification in order to detect a point or region where the measure density of people satisfies or exceeds a preset threshold corresponding to the start of a queue in a monitored elevator platform, thereby improve the elevator control simulation by using more accurate recognition of passenger distribution and congestion boundaries for optimizing elevator dispatching and boarding efficiency.
Claim 13, Mihashi and To and Fujiwara and Lin and Witczak fail to teach, but Gyger teaches The architectural model data assistance system according to claim 12,
wherein the predetermined threshold is variably set depending on a time zone or the front-of-line position ([0057], “The criterion can be represented by a threshold value, wherein objects are taken into account as member of the queue only if the speed thereof does not exceed the threshold value.” [0062], “The limit value can be fixedly predefined on the basis of empirical values, or it is determined dynamically on the basis of the average speeds ascertained, for example by the average or median speed being multiplied by a factor.” [0132], “… This is useful for the definition of the neighborhood within the queue and for defining the start of the queue.” FIG. 4 shows an occupancy map that records positions occupied by persons whose speed does not exceed a certain threshold value. Examiner note: the reference teaches a threshold/limit value that can be fixed or dynamically determined (i.e., variably set) based on measured crowed movement (average/median speed multiplies by a factor) [0057] and [0062], and defining the start of the queue (i.e., front-of-line position)). A POSITA would understand that dynamically determining the threshold based on measured movement data, such threshold may vary with different operation conditions, including time dependent traffic patterns and positional changes along the queue).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mihashi and To and Fujiwara and Lin and Witczak to incorporate the teachings of Gyger and applying threshold/limit value that can be fixed or dynamically determined based on measured crowed movement in order to adaptive threshold determination corresponding to real time variations in passenger behavior on the elevator platform, thereby improving the accuracy of detecting the start of a queue and improve the simulation and management of passenger flow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Finn US20180329032 A1 discloses a self-calibrating sensor system is provided and includes one or more sensors supportively disposed on or proximate to a wall defining one or more apertures and a processor. Each of the one or more sensors is configured to track individuals proximate to at least one of the one or more apertures. The processor is configured to determine one or more of a location and an orientation of each of the one or more sensors relative to the at least one of the one or more apertures from analyses of the tracking of the individuals.
Gyger US20160224845 A1 discloses determining the spatial extent of a free queue, proceeding from position information, firstly a monitoring region comprising the free queue is subdivided into a plurality of positions. Proceeding from the position information, objects assigned to the free queue are identified and tracked. A current position of at least a portion of the tracked objects is periodically stored. An average speed of at least a portion of the objects is determined, wherein the average speed of an object is determined on the basis of a plurality of the stored positions of the respective object. Finally, a first map is created, which records, in relation to the positions in the monitoring region, an appearance density of objects at the corresponding positions. Objects having an average speed outside a predefined range are not taken into account when creating the first map. Proceeding from a predefined exit region of the free queue, a flood fill method is carried out for generating a continuous region corresponding to the extent of the free queue.
Loos US20120207350 A1 discloses a device 1 is proposed for identification of a queue 2 of objects 10 in a monitoring area, having an interface 6 which can be connected to an image source 7, with the interface 6 being designed to observe at least one monitoring image 3 of the monitoring area of the image source, wherein the monitoring image 3 shows a scene background of the monitoring area with possible objects 10, having an evaluation device 5 which is designed to identify the queue 2 of the objects 10 in the at least one monitoring image, wherein the evaluation device 5 has an object detector module 8 which is designed to detect a plurality of objects 10 on the basis of the monitoring image 3, wherein the plurality of the detected objects 10 forms the basis for identification of the queue 2 of the objects 10, wherein the object detector module 8 is designed to identify the objects 8 in the monitoring image with the scene background and/or wherein the object detector module 8 has content-sensitive detectors 9 for detection of the objects 10.
Paragios US20070031005 A1 discloses change detection and crowding/congestion density estimation are two sub-tasks in an effective subway monitoring video system. Events of interest in subway settings include, for example, people counting (or density estimation), crowdedness (congestion) detection, any anomalous presence (e.g., jumping or falling) of persons/objects onto the track, and people tracking. Crowding detection in subway platforms, for example, is of interest for closing certain passageways, dynamically scheduling additional trains, and to improve security and passenger safety in the subway environment.
Westmacott US20190392222 A1, discloses a system and method for analysing queues in frames of video enables operators to preferably draw three regions of interest overlaid upon the video as short, medium, and long queue regions that form a notional queue area within the video. Examples include retail point of sale locations or for automated teller machine (ATM) transactions. In conjunction with a video analytics system that analyses the movement of the foreground objects relative to the queue regions, the system determines the number of objects occupying each queue region, length of the queue, and other queue-related statistics.
“MassMotion Help Guide” by Oasys, published April. 2019 discloses MassMotion is developed to enable design and planning professionals to rapidly test and analyse the movement of people in many kinds of environments. To do this MassMotion provides users with a suite of tools for creating and modifying 3D environments, defining operational scenarios, executing dynamic simulations and developing powerful analyses.
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 YI HAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571)272-3652. 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.
/YI . HAO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187