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, see Remarks page 6, filed on 10/27/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 4-9, and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 6-10, filed on 10/27/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 4-9, and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 10-14, filed on 10/27/2025, with respect to the rejections of amended claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 12-13 of Remarks, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
876
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the capturing of low resolution images) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Paragraphs 0053-0061 of Takanuma, in relation to Figure 13, disclose “a process for starting the operation of the escalator by setting the timer will be described with reference to the flow chart of FIG. First, when a timer is started to start a diagnosis for detecting a person inside the escalator (S1), an image of each step 38 is taken by the camera 10 (S2)…the CPU 14 inputs an image of the uppermost step 38 of the escalator from the signal input unit 12 (S3)…
The CPU 14 judges whether or not the lengths and numbers of the projected rungs 42 and demarcations 44, 46 for all steps 38 are all within the range of a reference value (criterion value) (S11).
If a positive judgment result is obtained in step S11, the diagnosis results for all steps 38 are normal, so the CPU 14 carries out processing to start operation of the escalator 30 (S13) and ends processing in this routine…
In this way, if the diagnostic results for all steps 38 are normal, operation of the escalator 30 is started, but if the diagnostic result for one step 38 is abnormal, operation of the escalator 30 is not started and the operation of the escalator 30 is kept stopped.”
Takanuma discloses a method for starting an elevator by determining whether a person is on the elevator. Wherein each step is imaged and has its demarcations extracted from the image and compared, in length and number, to reference values determined based on a reference step. In the case that the demarcations on all steps match the reference step values, then the steps are determined to not have any passengers, and can be remotely started.
Thus, Takanuma discloses the limitations “comparing the outline of the pattern with a pre-stored outline of the pattern and counting the number of outlines in the image that are the same as the pre-stored outline; wherein the prestored outline of the pattern represents a step that is not blocked; upon the comparison result showing that the outline of the pattern as identified is the same as the pre-stored outline of the pattern, determining that the pattern on the step of the escalator is not blocked, in response to the number of outlines of pattern being identified in the image and determined to be the same as the pre-stored outline of pattern is equal to the number of pre-stored outlines of pattern, determining that there are no passengers or objects on the escalator, and that the escalator can be turned-on or turned-off remotely; and remotely operating the escalator to turn on or turn off the escalator based on the determination that there are no passengers or objects on the escalator.”
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
As per claim(s) 9, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous.
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, 6, 8-9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanuma et al. (JP2013203484A) hereinafter referenced as Takanuma in view of Parvati, et al. (Parvati, K et al. Image Segmentation Using Gray-Scale Morphology and Marker-Controlled Watershed Transformation) hereinafter referenced as Parvati.
Regarding claim 1, Takanuma discloses: A method for remotely monitoring an escalator (Takanuma: Abstract), wherein the method comprises: capturing an image of an escalator by a camera (Takanuma: 0021: “The camera 10 captures an image of a monitoring target”), wherein each step of the escalator is provided with a pattern with a predetermined color, and a color of the pattern is different from a color of steps of the escalator (Takanuma: 0013: “In addition, to distinguish between the steps, a yellow line is drawn on each step (hereinafter, this line may be referred to as a demarcation line.) can also be made into a standardized component.”);
identifying an outline of the pattern (Takanuma: 0013: “to distinguish between the steps, a yellow line is drawn on each step (hereinafter, this line may be referred to as a demarcation line.) can also be made into a standardized component. Demarcations are colored in two vertical lines and two or one horizontal line per step along the direction of travel of the escalator, and the length, width and number of lines per step are the same for each step.”; Wherein the demarcation lines, standardized for all escalator steps, constitute an outline of a pattern);
comparing the outline of the pattern with a pre-stored outline of the pattern and counting the number of outlines in the image that are the same as the pre-stored outline (Takanuma: 0036: “If the image shown in Figure 6 is used as the reference (reference image) …2 demarcations 46 of dimension a, and 2 demarcations 44 of dimension c are stored…each of which falls within the range of the judgment reference value. In this case, the CPU 14 determines that an image being processed successively is normal if it matches this standard (is within the range of the judgment standard value).”; 0053: “First, when a timer is started to start a diagnosis for detecting a person inside the escalator (S1), an image of each step 38 is taken by the camera 10 (S2).”; Wherein each image taken comprises a single step image which is captured and has its demarcation’s lines compared to a reference image’s demarcation lines);
wherein the pre-stored outline of the pattern represents a step that is not blocked; upon the comparison result showing that the outline of the pattern as identified is the same as the pre-stored outline of the pattern, determining that the pattern on the step of the escalator is not blocked (Takanuma: 0029: “When the camera 10 photographs the step 38 shown in Figure 6, the image captured by the camera 10 shows no person on the step 31, which is normal and operation of the escalator 30 can be started. On the other hand, if the image shown in Figure 7 is obtained, the image captured by the camera 10 will show a person 40 on the step 38, so this will be considered an abnormality and the escalator 30 will remain stopped without starting operation.”;
0036: “If the image shown in Figure 6 is used as the reference (reference image)…2 demarcations 46 of dimension a, and 2 demarcations 44 of dimension c are stored…each of which falls within the range of the judgment reference value. In this case, the CPU 14 determines that an image being processed successively is normal if it matches this standard (is within the range of the judgment standard value).”; Wherein if a step’s demarcations match a standard, then the step, and its pattern, are determined as being unblocked.),
in response to the number of outlines of pattern being identified in the image and determined to be the same as the pre-stored outline of pattern is equal to the number of pre-stored outlines of pattern, determining that there are no passengers or objects on the escalator, and that the escalator can be turned-on or turned-off remotely; and remotely operating the escalator to turn on or turn off the escalator based on the determination that there are no passengers or objects on the escalator (Takanuma: 0057-0059: “If a positive determination result is obtained in step S9, the CPU 14 performs the operations from step S2 to step S9 on all steps 38 of the escalator up to the lowest step 38 (S10). The CPU 14 judges whether or not the lengths and numbers of the projected rungs 42 and demarcations 44, 46 for all steps 38 are all within the range of a reference value (criterion value) (S11). If a positive judgment result is obtained in step S11, the diagnosis results for all steps 38 are normal, so the CPU 14 carries out processing to start operation of the escalator 30 (S13) and ends processing in this routine.”;
0061: “In this way, if the diagnostic results for all steps 38 are normal, operation of the escalator 30 is started, but if the diagnostic result for one step 38 is abnormal, operation of the escalator 30 is not started and the operation of the escalator 30 is kept stopped.”; Wherein each image, which contains one step, is compared to the prestored standard step demarcations. In the case that at least one captured image’s step does not match the prestored standard step’s demarcations, the escalator remains stopped.).
Takanuma does not disclose expressly: performing a grayscale treatment to the captured image; and covering a background of the image which has been subjected to the grayscale treatment and separating the pattern.
Parvati discloses: performing a grayscale treatment to a captured image (Parvati: Page 5: Paragraph 1: “Color images were first converted into gray scale.”); covering a background of the image which has been subjected to the grayscale treatment and separating the pattern (Parvati: Figure 3; Page 7: Paragraph 2: “The algorithm is able to segment or extract desired parts of only gray-scale images.”; Page 6: Paragraph 1-2: “We used erosion-based gray-scale reconstruction (3.3) and (3.4) followed by dilation-based gray-scale reconstruction (3.1) and (3.2) to trace the foreground objects (selecting structuring element as per the desired objects)…we superimposed these markers on the original images as shown in Figure 3.”; Wherein the selected elements from the desired objects may be the pattern, which is superimposed on a covered background).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to gray scale the image captured and using the foreground extraction process as taught by Parvati to extract the pattern present on the step as taught by Takanuma. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been because by separating the foreground pattern from the background of the image, the detection algorithm would process the image faster. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Takanuma with Parvati to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Takanuma in view of Parvati discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein, the pattern is arranged on a tread and/or a riser of each step of the escalator (Takanuma: Figure 6; 0013: “In addition, to distinguish between the steps, a yellow line is drawn on each step (hereinafter, this line may be referred to as a demarcation line.) can also be made into a standardized component”).
Regarding claim 8, Takanuma in view of Parvati discloses: The method according to claim 6, wherein, the pattern is a boundary line arranged at a periphery of the tread and/or the riser of each step of the escalator (Takanuma: Figure 6; 0013: “Demarcations are colored in two vertical lines and two or one horizontal line per step along the direction of travel of the escalator, and the length, width and number of lines per step are the same for each step.”; Wherein the demarcation lines are arranged at the edges of the step).
As per claim(s) 9, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous. In addition, paragraph 21 of Takanuma discloses a CPU 14, which executes image processing for the monitoring of an escalator, which constitutes an image processor and processor.
As per claim(s) 14, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 6 are analogous.
As per claim(s) 16, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 8 are analogous.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanuma in view of Parvati, and further in view of Naka et al. (JP2006131379A) hereinafter referenced as Naka.
Regarding claim 7, Takanuma in view of Parvati discloses: The method according to claim 6.
Takanuma in view of Parvati does not disclose expressly: wherein, the pattern is an oval pattern arranged at a center of the tread and/or the riser of each step of the escalator.
Naka discloses: wherein the pattern is an oval pattern is arranged at a center of the riser of each step of the escalator. (Naka: 0024: “by making the light-transmitting window 39 orange in color, it is possible to achieve a design effect as well as an effect of making it easy to see. In particular, by forming the light transmitting window 39 into an elliptical shape that is long in the width direction of the riser 32, the area of the movement locus of the light transmitting window 39 is widened,”; 0029: “the light transmitting windows 39 may be arranged symmetrically on both sides of the center line in the width direction of the riser 32, and are not limited to a configuration in which three windows are arranged on one side of the center line.”; Wherein the 3 window oval pattern symmetrical on both sides of the line constitute the pattern being separated by the line, and thus centered.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the oval light transmission windows disclosed by Naka into the escalator risers disclosed by Takanuma in view of Parvati. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “when the passenger conveyor is viewed from the floor below, the risers emit light, improving the design effect. Furthermore, according to the present invention, when a passenger stands on a step, the riser of the adjacent upper step can emit light, improving the lighting effect at the passenger's feet.” (Naka: 0009-0010). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Takanuma in view of Parvati with Naka to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
As per claim(s) 15, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 7 are analogous.
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 ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights