DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In reference to applicant’s comments related to the amendment being made based on the examiner’s suggestions, the examiner suggested the claims to be amended by reciting the detection is made exclusively by an image capturing device found inside the car. Reciting that the determination module does not depend on feedback from a detection device installed on a hall side of the elevator is not the same things as stating the determination module only receives feedback from a specific sensor.
Additionally, the preamble of the independent claims uses an open-ended term “comprising” which allows the elevator devices to have additional components. The claims does not explicitly forbid the presence of the hall-side device connection. The examiner cannot determine, based on the claimed language, at what exact point the algorithm of the determination module “depends” exclusively on the interior detection device.
In reference to the art rejection, using the open-ended phrase “comprising”, the system described by the prior art matches every element of the amended claims. The mere presence of a hall-side detection device in some embodiments does not exclude the use of the prior art of record to reject the claimed invention.
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 1 and 3-20 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.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the phrase “does not depend on” means the determination module can physically receive data from various sources, but cannot require it to be able to perform the determination function. The claims do not define a threshold for what constitute “dependence”; therefore, the boundaries of the claims are ambiguous.
Additionally, the new added limitation is purely functional (“does not depend on”) rather that structural. Applicant should clearly recite what the determination module is connected to or is in communication with instead of attempting to claim an invention merely by excluding what the inventor did not invent in order to avoid a prior art document.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 3-10, and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohe (US Publication 2019/0002234), of record.
Claims 1 and 13, Shinohe teaches an elevator control apparatus comprising: a detection device 35 located in each of elevator cars 21a and 21b for capturing an image of passenger accessing an elevator car ; and a processing device 40 that includes, among a plurality of elements and a network video recorder (NVR) 41 having the function of analyzing an acquired image outputted by detection device 35 and identifying individuals waiting to board the elevator, wherein the processing device determines a destination floor of every passenger based on previously stored information about the passenger’s whereabouts in the building (boarding floors, boarding floors, and date/time when the elevator user has used the elevators). The passengers’ usage history is recorded in unit 50 for later use by the processing device. The processing device further determines the destination floor of different passengers by analyzing and comparing the number of passengers boarding the elevator on a specific floor (for example the lobby) and the remaining passengers after each time the elevator moves to different floors (see for example fig. 7 and corresponding description).
Starting in paragraph 102, Shinohe describes a scenario when a person is not present in the elevator boarding/exiting portion 23 before the elevator stops at a stop floor (the person is not detected by a hall-side detection camera 30), and the person just appears in portion 23 after the elevator stops, the processing device determines the presence of a person by using information detected by detection device 35 and not detection device 30 (see the description given in paragraphs 0103-0111).
It would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to acquire images from passengers using an elevator at different times during the operation of the elevator car in order to determine various patterns (detecting people in the boarding/exiting portion before an elevator stops at a stop floor using a plurality of detection devices in different areas and detecting a person or people in the boarding/exiting portion using a detection device inside the elevator car), the desired intervals of time or “states” is considered a design choice.
Claim 3, Shinohe describes the identification module (NVR 41) for extracting information related to the elevator user such as face images and determination that the captured image by detection device 25 is an individual (see for example the description given in paragraphs 0025 and 0118).
Claim 4, Shinohe describes detection device 35 as a camera (paragraph 0106) and the identification module 41 analyzes face images of the captured information from the elevator users.
Claim 5, Shinohe describes using identification module for analyzing images from cameras 30 installed near the elevator doors, wherein the cameras take pictures/videos at all angles to determine if the elevator user is a person/individual and particular facial characteristic.
Claim 6, Shinohe describes recording element 50 for recording elevator usage history by different passengers, wherein said stored information is compared to images captured during current use of the elevator in order to identify the elevator users (see for example the description given in paragraph 0029).
Claim 7, Shinohe describes a recording apparatus 50 for storing images captured by different cameras (either hall cameras 30 or elevators cameras 35), wherein this information is transmitted to the elevator control apparatus 40 wirelessly (para. 0024).
Claims 8 and 14-16, as described above, Shinohe teaches recording apparatus 50 for storing elevator usage history.
Claim 9, Shinohe describes in fig. 3 the sequence of steps taken by the elevator control system to determine boarding floors as well as leaving/destination floors of each individual using the elevator system.
Claim 10, Shinohe describes processing device 40 predicting the desired direction of movement of an individual waiting for an elevator as well as a destination floor or floors of said individual based on current time images of said individual and previously stored data (using recording apparatus 50), see the algorithm describes in fig. 8.
Claims 12, 17, and 18, Shinohe describes processing device 40 predicting the destination floor of elevator users based on usage history of the each passenger stored in apparatus 50.
Claim 19, Shinohe describes, paragraphs 00106-0111, how images within the elevator car are continuously taken by detection device 35 while the car is moving from a boarding floor to a desired exiting floor (it is inherent the elevator car door will be closed before the elevator car can move from one floor to another). The images are sent to a network video recorder 41 found in control apparatus 40 where they are analyzed so that a person/people inside the elevator car can be identified.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohe (US Publication 2019/0002234), of record and Vuorenala et al (US Publication 2016/0083218), of record.
Although, it would have been obvious to one person skilled in the art that a display means would need to be included in an elevator to let passengers know the a selected destination floor, Shinohe does not specifically describe a display means.
However, Vuorenala et al teaches an elevator system comprising a plurality of elevators cars A-D, an elevator control circuit 11, a call device 1, sensing means such as cameras 20, and display 3 for communicating information to passenger 2, wherein the control circuit comprises means 16/20 for generating elevator traffic data and said display is used by the control circuit to signal information to the passenger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a display means in the elevator system described by Shinohe, since said display would alert the passengers of a given elevator the direction of movement of the elevator as well as the destination of the elevator.
Claim(s) 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohe (US Publication 2019/0002234), of record and Katano et al (US Publication 20120057748), of record.
Although, Shinohe describes, paragraph 0041, specific techniques for analyzing the images recorded in network video recorder 41 of the elevator control apparatus 40. He also describes that other image analysis processes can be used.
Katano teaches an image processing apparatus/method for analyzing moving objects such as people, the processing apparatus comprising a central processing unit 1, memory means 2/3, and hard disk 4, wherein the image processing apparatus analyzes images captured by an image apparatus 101 such as a camera or video camera that is capable of continuously acquiring images (see paragraph 0033). Katano further describes, paragraphs 0053-0058, how the acquired images are analyzed. In paragraph 0058, Katano points out Sobel filter being used to analyze the captured images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Sobel Filters to analyze images captured by a camera to identify different people, since as described by Shinohe in paragraph 0041 any known process or method can be used to analyze images captured by detection devices such as cameras and Sobel Filters are one of said known methods commonly
Conclusion
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 Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights