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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/31/2026 has been entered.
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) 1, 3-11, 13-18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwatsu (WO 2018/158813 A1) (hereinafter rejection rely on provided equivalent English machine translation) in view of Guillot (US 2018/0086595 A1).
Preston (US 2015/0232300 A1) and Schach et al. (US 2018/0111792 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 17-18, Iwatsu discloses a method, a computer program (e.g. p. 7: software) for executing the method (e.g. process shown in Fig. 4), an elevator system and an arrangement of an elevator system for controlling the elevator system (e.g. Fig. 1: elevator call registration system), the arrangement comprising:
at least one gaze tracking device (e.g. Fig. 1: line of sight recognition camera 10, 12, 13) for capturing a number of images representing at least one eye of a person (e.g. p. 3-4, 7 & 9: line of sight image taken by camera closest to the user’s eye); and
a control unit (e.g. p. 7 & Fig. 5: processor 51 & Fig. 2: 2) configured to, in response to a receipt of the number of images from the gaze tracking device, perform:
detect a predefined input from image data received from the gaze tracking device (e.g. Abstract: point of gaze based on image captured by a gaze recognition camera 10);
detect an intersection of the virtual user interface and a gaze point, the gaze point being related to a detection of the predefined input and determined from the image data received from the gaze tracking device (e.g. Abstract: point of gaze based on image captured by a gaze recognition camera 10; p. 4: point of sight directed to a position corresponding to floor buttons 5, indicator 8, or input start mark 11 for a period of time, for example); and
generate a control signal to the elevator system in accordance with a position of the gaze point intersecting the virtual user interface (e.g. p. 4: operation detection unit 21 detects a call registration operation based on detection position by the line-of-sight recognition unit 17).
Iwatsu fails to disclose, but Guillot teaches at least one projector device for projecting a virtual user interface (e.g. Fig. 3: 304 & [0042]),
one or more sensors configured to detect the person (e.g. Fig. 3: 302 & [0041]);
wherein the control unit is further configured to control an operation of the at least one projector device such that the virtual user interface is projected by the at least one projector device based on the detection of the person by the one or more sensors (e.g. Figs. 3-4 & [0046]);
wherein the at least one projector device is configured to generate the virtual user interface at a plurality of predefined locations in a space around an elevator door (e.g. Fig. 3 & [0042]: project image on one of car panels 327, 329), and
wherein the control unit is configured to select a location of the virtual user interface among the plurality of predefined locations based on input from the one or more sensors and cause the at least one projector device to generate the image at the selected location (e.g. [0041, 0042, 0046]: proximity sensor track location of passenger inside the elevator and project virtual car panel in close proximity to the passenger).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Iwatsu with the teachings of Guillot to project image based on detection of a person in proximity to the elevator panel so as to provide car panel to passenger at a location with easy access (e.g. Guillot: [0046]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Iwatsu discloses the control unit is configured to perform a detection of at least one of: a blink of the at least one eye of the person; and a position of the gaze point remains stationary with a predefined margin a period of time exceeding a predefined threshold time in at least one image among the number of images(p. 4: point of sight directed to a position corresponding to floor buttons 5, indicator 8, or input start mark 11 for a period of time, for example).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Iwatsu and Guillot in combination discloses the control unit is configured to generate the control signal to the elevator system in accordance with the position of the gaze point intersecting the virtual user interface in response to a detection that the gaze point intersects a predefined area of the virtual user interface (e.g. Iwatsu in p. 4: operation detection unit 21 detects a call registration operation based on detection position of passenger gazing at a floor button on a control panel by the line-of-sight recognition unit 17, and Guillot in [0041, 0042, 0046] teaches elevator is capable of projecting a virtual control panel).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Iwatsu discloses the control unit is configured to determine a relation of the gaze point to the detection of the predefined input by one of: the gaze point corresponds to a gaze point determined from at least one same image as from which image the predefined input is detected (e.g. p. 4-5 & Fig. 3); and the gaze point corresponds to a gaze point determined from at least one previous image to the image from which the predefined input is detected.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Guillot teaches the projector device is arranged to generate the virtual user interface by projecting the virtual user interface to at least one of: a physical surface (e.g. Fig. 3 & [0041, 0042, 0046]: project image on one of car panels 327, 329); and air (e.g. Fig. 5 & [0047]: holographic display).
Regarding claim 7, Guillot teaches the projector device is arranged to project the virtual user interface to the physical surface with a light beam (e.g. [0041-0046]: projector and hologram implies light beam).
Regarding claims 8-10, claims are rejected in view of rejections of claims 6 and 16. Limitations recited in the claims further limit “air” recited in claims 6 and 16; and, claims 6 and 16 have been rejected in view of “physical surface”.
Regarding claim 22, Guillot teaches a first projector (e.g. Fig. 3: 304) of the at least one projector device is configured to generate the image at the plurality of predefined locations (e.g. Fig. 3 & [0041, 0042, 0046]: project image on one of car panels 327, 329).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-18 and 22 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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.
/KAWING CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights