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 .
Claims
The amendments to claims 1, 2, 8-10, 15 and 16 have been accepted.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent to Amores-Llopis et al. (10,095,315) in view of the US patent application publications to Chen et al. (US 2019/0345001) and Yoshizawa et al. (US 2019/0248623), the Japanese publication JP 6611685 B2, the Japanese publication to Hatori et al. (JP 2017-30891 A), and the Chinese publication to Chapman et al. (CN 107000975 A).
In terms of claim 1, Amores-Llopis et al. teaches an indication system for generating an indication, wherein the indication system comprises: at least one indication device (see column 6, lines 49-63 and column 9, lines 33-36); at least one detection device (210.1-210.3) configured to monitor at least one area (211.1-211.3) inside a building to provide monitoring data (see Figure 3 and column 7, line 40 – column 9, line 17); and a control unit configured to: identify a user (160, 260) (identify a user in the monitored are whether a gesture is detected or not, column 8, lines 24-38); detect based on the monitoring data obtained from the at least one detection device at least one predefined gesture of an of the identified user for which an elevator car (A-D) has been allocated (see column 7, line 40 – column 9, line 17); and control the at least one indication device to generate a visual indication (visual indication provides a confirmation that the gesture was sensed) on a display in a vicinity of the identified user in response to the detection of the at least one predefined gesture of the identified user (see column 6, lines 49-63 and column 9, lines 33-36).
Amores-Llopis et al. fails to explicitly teach the visual indication generated on a floor of the building. Chen et al. (US 2019/0345001) teaches sensing a user and indicating on the floor a visual indication of an intended path for said user (see Figure 1), Yoshizawa et al. (US 2019/0248623) teaches sensing a particular user and displaying a visual indication on the floor indicating that user’s needs (see Figures 5-3c-d), Japanese publication JP 6611685 B2 senses users in a monitored are and displays a visual indication on the floor (see Figures 12 and 15), Hatori et al. (JP 2017-30891 A) teaches projecting a guidance display on the floor (see Figures 12 and 14), and Chapman et al. (CN 107000975 A) teaches projecting dynamic visual indications on the floor (see Figure 2). Therefore, given all these references teach sensing means and visual indications related to said sensing means, similar to Amores-Llopis et al., it would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, to display the indication of Amores-Llopis et al. on the floor of the building, given Amores-Llopis et al. teaches displaying said indication in proximity of the user or near the detected location of the user, and the floor area where the user is detected is an area within proximity of the user.
As for claim 2, Amores-Llopis et al. teaches operation of the at least one detection device (210.1-210.3) is based on object recognition or pattern recognition (see references cited above).
As for claim 3, Amores-Llopis et al. teaches the monitored at least one area comprises a lobby area of the building, a landing area on at least one floor of the building, and/or one or more other areas on at least one floor of the building (see references cited above and column 12, line 66 – column 13, line 4).
As for claim 4, Amores-Llopis et al. again teaches the visual indication providing a confirmation that the gesture and thus destination was sensed (see references cited above and column 5, lines 8-9).
As for claim 5, Amores-Llopis et al. teaches the visual indication indicated during a predefined period of time or until a detection of a predefined second gesture of the identified user (see column 8, lines 46-62 and column 10, lines 24-36).
As for clam 6, Amores-Llopis et al. teaches the monitoring comprises tracking movements and gestures of the identified user within the at least one monitoring area (see column 8, lines 49-54, column 9, lines 1-6, and column 12, line 66 – column 13, line 4).
As for claim 7, Amores-Llopis et al. fails to explicitly teach identifying that a user has exited the building. However, Amores-Llopis et al. teaches cameras detecting a user throughout a building and detecting when a user diverges from their path. Amores-Llopis et al. further teaches cancelling a call or gesture when the user is detected as no longer headed to the elevator or diverging off their path (see column 8, lines 46-62). Therefore it would have been obvious that if the detection system no longer senses the user in the building then it would conclude that the user has exited the building and thus cancel their call or gesture given they are no longer headed to their predetermined destination.
In terms of claim 8, Amores-Llopis et al. and the other references cited again teach all the similar elements of claim 1, including Amores-Llopis et al. teaching the ability to cancel a call as discussed above in claim 7. Amores-Llopis et al. further teaches sending a notification to the user indicating that a call has been cancelled (see column 8, lines 59-62).
As for claims 17-20, Amores-Llopis et al. and the references cited above again teach all the similar elements as discussed above in claims 3-5.
In terms of claims 9-16, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of apparatus claims 1-8, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of method claims 9-16, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/26/2025, regarding the amendments specifying that the user is first identified and then a gesture of the identified user is detected, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection has been made above.
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 Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 03/07/2026