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 .
Priority
Application 18/558,105 was filed on October 30, 2023 and claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 371 as a U.S. National Phase Application of application no. PCT/EP2022/058121, filed on 28 March 2022, which claims benefit of German Patent Application no. 10 2021 204 321.6, filed on 30 April 2021, and German Patent Application No. 10 2021 208 979.8, filed on 17 August 2021.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 5-9 were amended in the reply filed December 11, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Objections:
Applicant's amendments overcome objections to claims 7-9 and they are withdrawn.
112(b):
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) to claim 8 and it is withdrawn.
112(a):
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) to claims 1-7 and 9 and it is withdrawn.
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process because “it is not practical to have two humans, each positioned one of the two doors of the transport vehicle of the figure, detect tickets, count passengers, and compare the number of tickets to passengers each time one or more passenger’s board and exit the vehicle” (Remarks p. 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. A claim does not recite a mental process when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)). A human mind is capable of detecting tickets, counting passengers, and comparing tickets to passengers. Furthermore, the claims also recite an abstract idea as “certain methods of organizing human activity”, which is a separate category of abstract idea as mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Applicant further argues that the claimed system “is a technical solution to problems associated with ticket detection systems are not able to recognize fare dodgers that utilize today's passenger transport vehicles” (Remarks p. 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed improvement is not directed towards any computer functionality, which does not automatically make the claims ineligible. However, the claimed improvements are improvements to the abstract idea of recognizing fare dodgers. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
102/103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C § 102 and 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “a person detection system having a plurality of first sensors and an axle load measurement device,, the first sensors being mounted adjacent doors …” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains a typographical/grammatical error (i.e., a double comma after “device”). For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to mean, “a person detection system having a plurality of first sensors and an axle load measurement device, the first sensors being mounted adjacent doors …” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein the plurality of door sensors comprises proximity sensors which are mounted in an area of the doors of the means of passenger transport” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends recites “a plurality of first sensors” and “the first sensors being mounted adjacent doors of the means of passenger transport”. However, there is no recitation of “a plurality of door sensors”. As such, it appears the plurality of door sensors is intended to refer to the plurality or first sensors. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to mean, “wherein the plurality of first sensors comprises proximity sensors which are mounted in an area of the doors of the means of passenger transport” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites, “the person detection system being comprising a plurality of imaging or proximity sensors mounted adjacent doors of the bus” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains a typographical/grammatical error. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to mean, “the person detection system comprising a plurality of imaging or proximity sensors mounted adjacent doors of the bus” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 further recites, “and carrying out a targeted passenger checks when the passenger is recognized as a fare dodger; arranging a further sensor to detect at least a portion of a passenger compartment to monitor the passenger compartment” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains a typographical/grammatical error (i.e., the “and” is not at the end of the list of limitations). For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to mean, “carrying out a targeted passenger checks when the passenger is recognized as a fare dodger; and arranging a further sensor to detect at least a portion of a passenger compartment to monitor the passenger compartment” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites, “wherein the person detection system is configured to pinpoint an exact location for each of the persons within the means of passenger transport by means of the compartment imaging sensors” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends recites “the person detection system comprising an imaging sensor” (emphasis added). However, there is no recitation of “compartment imaging sensors”. As such, it appears the plurality of door sensors is intended to refer to the imaging sensor. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to mean, “wherein the person detection system is configured to pinpoint an exact location for each of the persons within the means of passenger transport by means of the imaging sensor” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 and 9 are also objected to by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites, “wherein the person detection system comprises an axle load measurement device or a wheel load measurement device” (emphasis added). Claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends recites “a person detection system having a plurality of first sensors and an axle load measurement device” (emphasis added). According to claim 1, the person detection system contains an axle load measurement device. However, claim 6 makes an axle load measurement device optional as an alternative choice to a wheel load measurement device. As such, claim 6 does not require all the limitations of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted to only include an axle load measurement device. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites, recognizing passengers using a means of passenger transport without a ticket, the means of passenger transport having at least one axle and traveling along a route having a plurality of stops at which passengers board and alight the means of passenger transport:
detect a number of tickets of the passengers boarding and alighting the means of passenger transport;
detecting passengers boarding the means of passenger transport and passengers alighting the means of passenger transport;
and detect a number of passengers in the means of passenger transport based on difference between the number of the passengers detected boarding and the number of the passengers alighting the means of passenger transport;
determine a difference between the number of the tickets detected and the number of the passengers in the means of passenger transport detected,
wherein, when the difference between the number of the tickets detected and the number of the passengers in the means of passenger transport detected is non-zero, recognizes a passenger using the means of passenger transport without a ticket as a fare dodger,
monitoring the passenger compartment, create images of at least a part of the passenger compartment, wherein the created images are compared to each other to identify the people in the passenger compartment.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the limitations above recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including sales activities or behaviors: or business relation). Specifically, detecting fare dodgers (i.e., passengers who have not purchased a ticket) is a sales activity and/or behavior.
Additionally, each of the limitations are mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to detect tickets, count passengers, compare the number of tickets to passengers, and recognize a fare dodger, can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
Independent claim 8 recites, detecting and counting tickets of persons as the persons board and alight the bus;
detecting and counting the persons independently of detecting and counting the tickets of the persons as the persons board and alight the bus, the person detection system mounted adjacent doors of the bus;
determining a number of the detected tickets from a difference between the number of tickets detected as the persons board the bus and the number of tickets detected as the persons alights the bus;
determining a number of the detected persons from a difference between the number of persons detected as the persons board the bus and the number of persons detected as the persons alight the bus;
comparing the number of the detected tickets with the number of the detected person recognizing a passenger using the bus without a ticket as a fare dodger, if a difference between the number of the detected tickets and the number of the detected passengers is non-zero;
and carrying out targeted passenger checks when the passenger is recognized as a fare dodger
arranging to detect at least a portion of a passenger compartment to monitor the passenger compartment, to pinpoint the location of the passenger.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the limitations above recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including sales activities or behaviors: or business relation). Specifically, detecting fare dodgers (i.e., passengers who have not purchased a ticket) is a sales activity and/or behavior.
Additionally, each of the limitations are mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to detect tickets, count passengers, compare the number of tickets to passengers, recognize a fare dodger, and perform passenger checks can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 8 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1 and 8 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a ticket detection system (claims 1 and 8), a person detection system (claims 1 and 8), a plurality of first sensors, (claim 1) a comparison means (claims 1 and 8), an automated fare dodger recognition arrangement (claim 8), and a further sensor (claim 8). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, claims 1 and 8 recite the following additional element: an axle load measurement device (claims 1 and 8), an imaging sensor (claim 1), and a plurality of imaging or proximity sensors (claim 8). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (monitoring passengers transported by a vehicle) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Claims 1-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-4, 7, and 9, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 8. The additional elements in claims 5 and 6 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 5 and 6, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 5 and 6 also recite the additional elements of proximity sensors (claim 5) and a wheel load measurement device (claim 6). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., detecting passengers on a vehicle) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 5 and 6, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a proximity sensor and a wheel load measurement device, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 5 and 6 are also ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication No. DE 102020003842 A1 to Marvin et al (Marvin) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0211188 to Bergdale et al. (Bergdale).
As to claim 1, Marvin teaches the means of passenger transport having at least one axle and traveling along a route having a plurality of stops at which passengers board and alight the means of passenger transport, the system comprising (“… Increased transparency on transport routes, especially bus routes, which are used by particularly high numbers of fare dodgers” [0012-0013]):
a ticket detection system configured to detect a number of tickets of the passengers boarding and alighting the means of passenger transport (“… A counting device is used to record the number of tickets and/or travel passes sold …” and “In a third step S3 of the method, a counting device 16 of the assistance system 10 records a number of tickets and/or travel passes 11 sold …” [0016 and 0021]);
a person detection system having an axle load measurement device (“In this case, the motor vehicle has, for example, a chassis with a suspension, by means of which a current total weight of the motor vehicle can be determined, in particular recorded …” and “An evaluation device 14 of the assistance system 10 arranged on the motor vehicle 12 is designed to determine a weight of passengers of the motor vehicle 12 …” [0008-0009 and 0020]);
and a comparison means configured to determine a difference between the number of the tickets detected by the ticket detection system and the number of the passengers in the means of passenger transport detected by the person detection system (“… An electronic computer is used to determine any discrepancy between the determined weight and the determined number of tickets and/or travel passes sold …” and “In a fourth step S4 of the method, the electronic computing device 18 determines a discrepancy between the number of passengers and the number of tickets sold …” [0016 and 0022]),
if wherein, when the difference between the number of the tickets detected and the number of the passengers in the means of passenger transport detected is non-zero, the system for recognizing passengers using the means of passenger transport without a ticket recognizes a passenger using the means of passenger transport without a ticket as a fare dodger (“… From these numbers, conclusions can now be drawn in the manner described about the number of fare dodgers or the probability of the existence of fare dodgers in the means of transport, so that, for example, inspectors can subsequently be given a recommendation as to when which means of transport should be inspected in order to be able to detect a high number of fare dodgers particularly effectively and efficiently” and “… Depending on the received fourth signal and thus depending on the discrepancy, the data receiver device 22 outputs a haptic and/or optical and/or acoustically perceptible indication signal, by which the controller is informed of the increased discrepancy and thus an increased probability of passengers without valid tickets and/or travel passes 11 …” [0010-0011 and 0022]).
Marvin does not teach, the ticket detection system being one of a Check in - Check out (CiCo) system, Be in - Be out (BiBo) system and a combination of the CiCo, BiBo systems; a person detection system having a plurality of first sensors, the first sensors being mounted adjacent doors of the means of passenger transport and detecting passengers boarding the means of passenger transport and passengers alighting the means of passenger transport, and the person detection system configured to detect a number of passengers in the means of passenger transport based on difference between the number of the passengers detected boarding and the number of the passengers alighting the means of passenger transport; the person detection system comprising an imaging sensor that is configured for monitoring the passenger compartment, the imaging sensor being arranged to create images of at least a part of the passenger compartment, wherein the created images are compared to each other to identify the people in the passenger compartment. However, Bergdale teaches, the ticket detection system being one of a Check in - Check out (CiCo) system, Be in - Be out (BiBo) system and a combination of the CiCo, BiBo systems (“… In contrast to a WiWo system, the BiBo configuration may be implemented in a mobile environment such as, for example, in trains, buses, ferries, or other transit vehicles. A BiBo system may be part of a gateless environment and installed in a transit vehicle …” [0102-0104]);
a person detection system having a plurality of first sensors the first sensors being mounted adjacent doors of the means of passenger transport and detecting passengers boarding the means of passenger transport and passengers alighting the means of passenger transport (“… The 3D camera(s) 146 may be mounted at the entry/exit points of the transit vehicle with the camera field-of-view covering the width of the passageway …” and “There may be a plurality of device locators 140, 142 utilized as part of a gateless entry/exit environment. The device locators 140, 142 may be placed at various locations throughout the transit station (for example, a train station or a bus stop) or transit vehicle (for example, a bus or a train) where the gateless entry/exit facility is provided …” [0103-0105 and 0108]),
and the person detection system configured to detect a number of passengers in the means of passenger transport based on difference between the number of the passengers detected boarding and the number of the passengers alighting the means of passenger transport (“The transit station 60 may have a number of “people counting” devices 67-68 to determine when a person has entered the fare validation zone …” and “To aid the transit service administrators, the controller driver 14 may keep statistics in any mode of operation …” and “Referring now to FIG. 8, the “People Counter Data” are the data sent to the FV controller driver 14 by the people-counting devices 67-68 to aid in determining the number of people in the fare gate trigger zone 85 …” [0050 and 0066 and 0090]);
the person detection system comprising an imaging sensor that is configured for monitoring the passenger compartment, the imaging sensor being arranged to create images of at least a part of the passenger compartment, wherein the created images are compared to each other to identify the people in the passenger compartment (“… Similarly, the 3D camera(s) 146 may be functionally substantially similar to one or more of the “people counting devices” 67-68 and, hence, the hardware features of the 3D camera(s) 146 are not discussed in further details here. In some embodiments, however, the 3D camera 146 may be an infrared camera that uses time-of-flight (TOF) technology to detect and track objects in the camera's field of view 160” [0100-0105] Examiner notes that, per paragraph [0015] of Applicant’s specification, “identifying” people in the passenger compartment means detecting the presence of people in the passenger compartment).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, the ticket detection system being one of a Check in - Check out (CiCo) system, Be in - Be out (BiBo) system and a combination of the CiCo, BiBo systems; a person detection system having a plurality of first sensors, the first sensors being mounted adjacent doors of the means of passenger transport and detecting passengers boarding the means of passenger transport and passengers alighting the means of passenger transport, and the person detection system configured to detect a number of passengers in the means of passenger transport based on difference between the number of the passengers detected boarding and the number of the passengers alighting the means of passenger transport; the person detection system comprising an imaging sensor that is configured for monitoring the passenger compartment, the imaging sensor being arranged to create images of at least a part of the passenger compartment, wherein the created images are compared to each other to identify the people in the passenger compartment, as taught by Bergdale with the passenger detection system of Marvin. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Bergdale that doing so would facilitate gateless entry/exit for a transit service in an automated, hands-free manner [0005].
As to claim 5, Marvin in view of Bergdale teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Marvin does not teach, wherein the plurality of door sensors comprises proximity sensors which are mounted in an area of the doors of the means of passenger transport and have a detection range that at least partially covers an area that passengers pass when using the doors and are configured to detect the passengers boarding and alighting the means of passenger transport. However, Bergdale teaches, wherein the plurality of door sensors comprises proximity sensors which are mounted in an area of the doors of the means of passenger transport and have a detection range that at least partially covers an area that passengers pass when using the doors and are configured to detect the passengers boarding and alighting the means of passenger transport (“The beacons may be used for determining proximity of a mobile device to a particular location …” and “… As mentioned before, the gateless entry configuration 174 of FIG. 12 may be primarily implemented inside a transit vehicle such that the boundaries of the paid area 178 may be the perimeter of the transit vehicle whereas the unpaid area 176 may be the area surrounding the entry and exit points of the transit vehicle …” [0047 and 0111-0112]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the plurality of door sensors comprises proximity sensors which are mounted in an area of the doors of the means of passenger transport and have a detection range that at least partially covers an area that passengers pass when using the doors and are configured to detect the passengers boarding and alighting the means of passenger transport, as taught by Bergdale with the passenger detection system of Marvin. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Bergdale that doing so would facilitate gateless entry/exit for a transit service in an automated, hands-free manner [0005].
As to claim 7, Marvin in view of Bergdale teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Marvin does not teach, wherein the imaging sensor is configured to determine an exact location of an individual passenger within the interior of the means of passenger transport. However, Bergdale teaches, wherein the imaging sensor is configured to determine an exact location of an individual passenger within the interior of the means of passenger transport (“… Similarly, in the context of the embodiments in FIGS. 9-12, a “paid area” may refer to an area where only users who have paid the transit fare or who have valid electronic tickets are allowed to be. Generally, a “paid area” may represent a portion of the transit facility (for example, a transit station or a transit vehicle) allocated mainly for the authorized users of the transit service …” and “When the user 163 enters the pre-determined region 170 (FIG. 11) or a similar coverage location within the proximity area 176 (FIG. 12) with the mobile phone 17 in possession, the 3D time-of-flight camera 146 may detect the person 163 as an object in the camera's field of view 160 …” [0111-0112 and 0124]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the imaging sensor is configured to determine an exact location of an individual passenger within the interior of the means of passenger transport, as taught by Bergdale with the passenger detection system of Marvin. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Bergdale that doing so would facilitate gateless entry/exit for a transit service in an automated, hands-free manner [0005].
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication No. DE 102020003842 A1 to Marvin et al (Marvin) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0211188 to Bergdale et al. (Bergdale), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,332,162 to Brock et al. (Brock).
As to claim 2, Marvin in view of Bergdale teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Marvin in view of Bergdale does not teach, wherein the ticket detection system is configured to detect a passenger identifier or a ticket identifier, the ticket detection system being positioned at the stops along the route traveled by the means of passenger transport to detect the passenger identifier or the ticket identifier when the passenger boards and alights the means of passenger transport and to debit an amount of a payment means from an account associated with the passenger identifier or the ticket identifier. However, Brock teaches, wherein the ticket detection system is configured to detect a passenger identifier or a ticket identifier, the ticket detection system being positioned at the stops along the route traveled by the means of passenger transport to detect the passenger identifier or the ticket identifier when the passenger boards and alights the means of passenger transport (“… the user need only go to the station, board the transit vehicle, and deboard the vehicle. Meanwhile, the details of figuring out the trip length or stations visited, fare owed, and fare payment method are handled automatically” and “… The receiver device can generate geographic location information that records locations of the bus while the user was on board. When the user exits the bus, the receiver device can forward the geographic location information to a payment service system along with the user identifier received from the BLE signal” [col. 1, line 45 – col. 2, line 2 and col. 2, lines 16-63]),
the detection system being positioned to detect the passenger or the ticket identifier when the passenger boards and alights the means of passenger transport and to debit an amount of a payment means from an account associated with said the passenger or the ticket identifier (“A system can use a wireless beacon to detect a user's presence on a passenger transport vehicle, e.g. a bus or a train, which can be used to determine the user's activity on a transit system. A user's transit activity can include ride information describing transit vehicles ridden by the user, origins and destinations of each ride, locations along each ride, and times that each ride occurred and times that the user arrived or departed each location. The system can then calculate fares for the user's transit activity and can, with the user's consent, use a payment service system to automatically process payment transactions for the fares owed by the user …” and “For example, a user can install an application on a BLE-enabled smartphone. The application can cause the smartphone to emit BLE signals at regular intervals, e.g., every two seconds. The BLE signal can encode a user identifier of the user, which can be linked to or otherwise used to identify an account that the user has with a payment service system …” [col. 1, line 45 – col. 2, line 2 and col. 2, lines 39-53]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the ticket detection system is configured to detect a passenger identifier or a ticket identifier, the ticket detection system being positioned at the stops along the route traveled by the means of passenger transport to detect the passenger identifier or the ticket identifier when the passenger boards and alights the means of passenger transport and to debit an amount of a payment means from an account associated with the passenger identifier or the ticket identifier, as taught by Brock with the passenger detection system of Marvin in view of Bergdale. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Brock that doing so would reduce lines for purchasing tickets and for boarding [col. 2, lines 4-5].
As to claim 3, Marvin in view of Bergdale in view of Brock teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Marvin in view of Bergdale does not teach, wherein the ticket detection system is configured to determine the amount the payment means is debited as a function of a the route traveled by the passenger between boarding the means of passenger transport at one of the stops along the route and alighting the means of passenger transport at another one of the stops along the route. However, Brock teaches, wherein the ticket detection system is configured to determine the amount the payment means is debited as a function of a the route traveled by the passenger between boarding the means of passenger transport at one of the stops along the route and alighting the means of passenger transport at another one of the stops along the route (“The receiver device can generate geographic location information that records locations of the bus while the user was on board [i.e., a route traveled between boarding and alighting]. When the user exits the bus, the receiver device can forward the geographic location information to a payment service system along with the user identifier received from the BLE signal. The payment service system can calculate a fare owed based on the geographic location information and use the user identifier to identify an account of the user, which will be used to process a payment transaction for the fare owed.” [col. 2, lines 54-63]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the ticket detection system is configured to determine the amount the payment means is debited as a function of a the route traveled by the passenger between boarding the means of passenger transport at one of the stops along the route and alighting the means of passenger transport at another one of the stops along the route, as taught by Brock with the passenger detection system of Marvin in view of Bergdale. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Brock that doing so would reduce lines for purchasing tickets and for boarding [col. 2, lines 4-5].
As to claim 4, Marvin in view of Bergdale teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Marvin in view of Bergdale does not teach, wherein the ticket detection system is configured to check whether the ticket is associated with an amount of a payment entitling the passenger to use the means of passenger transport. However, Brock teaches, wherein the ticket detection system is configured to check whether the ticket is associated with an amount of a payment entitling the passenger to use the means of passenger transport (“… The payment service system uses this information to compute a fare owed. The payment service system can then identify an account of the user using the user identifier and process a purchase transaction for the fare using the account of the user.” [col. 1, lines 55-67]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the ticket detection system is configured to check whether the ticket is associated with an amount of a payment entitling the passenger to use the means of passenger transport, as taught by Brock with the passenger detection system of Marvin in view of Bergdale. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Brock that doing so would reduce lines for purchasing tickets and for boarding [col. 2, lines 4-5].
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication No. DE 102020003842 A1 to Marvin et al (Marvin) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0211188 to Bergdale et al. (Bergdale), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of German Patent No. DE 10009540 C2 to Ulrich et al. (Ulrich).
As to claim 6, Marvin in view of Bergdale teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Marvin further teaches, wherein the person detection system comprises an axle load measurement device or a wheel load measurement device which is mounted on the means of passenger transport and which continuously or repeatedly measure the axle load or a wheel load respectively placed on the at least one axle (“… This allows the current loading of the respective means of transport to be recorded down to the second …” [0012]).
Marvin in view of Bergdale does not teach, and are configured to detect a location of an individual passenger within the means of passenger transport based on the axle load or the wheel load placed on the at least one axle of the means of passenger transport. However, Ulrich teaches, and are configured to detect a location of an individual passenger within the means of passenger transport based on the axle load or the wheel load placed on the at least one axle of the means of passenger transport (“According to the figures, a [motor vehicle] 9 [wheel load sensors] 10, 12, 14 [and] 16 [are] arranged at the wheels 2, 4, 6 and 8, which detects the loads of the individual vehicle wheels … By evaluating the wheel load measurement according to the above formula, the position of a mass body introduced into or removed from the vehicle can be determined” [p. 2-3]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, and are configured to detect a location of an individual passenger within the means of passenger transport based on the axle load or the wheel load placed on the at least one axle of the means of passenger transport, as taught by Ulrich with the passenger detection system of Marvin in view of Bergdale. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ulrich that doing so would “provide a simple and cost-effective method for determining the position and/or the weight of a mass body located in a motor vehicle” [p. 1].
While Ulrich teaches a wheel load measurement device, Ulrich does not teach an axle load measurement device. However, Marvin teaches, an axle load measurement device (“… In this case, the motor vehicle has, for example, a chassis with a suspension, by means of which a current total weight of the motor vehicle can be determined, in particular recorded. The suspension provides, for example, a signal, in particular an electrical signal, in particular via a data bus of the motor vehicle, for example in the form of a CAN bus. The signal characterizes the total weight detected by the suspension …” [0008] Examiner notes that an axle is part of the suspension. As such, the signal from the suspension is generated by an “axle load measurement device”). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the axle load measurement device of Marvin for the wheel load measurement device of Ulrich. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Marvin that doing so would allow the use of motor vehicles designed as paid means of transport to be particularly well controlled [0004]. Examiner notes that per paragraphs [0016-0017] of Applicant’s specification, the axle load measurement device and wheel load measurement device appear interchangeable.
As to claim 9, Marvin in view of Bergdale in view of Ulrich teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Marvin does not teach, wherein the person detection system is configured to pinpoint an exact location for each of the persons within the means of passenger transport by means of the compartment imaging sensors. However, Bergdale teaches, wherein the person detection system is configured to pinpoint an exact location for each of the persons within the means of passenger transport by means of the compartment imaging sensors (“… Similarly, in the context of the embodiments in FIGS. 9-12, a “paid area” may refer to an area where only users who have paid the transit fare or who have valid electronic tickets are allowed to be. Generally, a “paid area” may represent a portion of the transit facility (for example, a transit station or a transit vehicle) allocated mainly for the authorized users of the transit service …” and “When the user 163 enters the pre-determined region 170 (FIG. 11) or a similar coverage location within the proximity area 176 (FIG. 12) with the mobile phone 17 in possession, the 3D time-of-flight camera 146 may detect the person 163 as an object in the camera's field of view 160 …” [0111-0112 and 0124]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the person detection system is configured to pinpoint an exact location for each of the persons within the means of passenger transport by means of the compartment imaging sensors, as taught by Bergdale with the passenger detection system of Marvin. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Bergdale that doing so would facilitate gateless entry/exit for a transit service in an automated, hands-free manner [0005].
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication No. DE 102020003842 A1 to Marvin et al (Marvin), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0159863 to Kranzinger (Kranzinger)).
As to claim 8, Marvin teaches, persons using a bus without a ticket, the bus having at least one axle (“… Increased transparency on transport routes, especially bus routes, which are used by particularly high numbers of fare dodgers” [0012-0013]):
detecting and counting tickets of persons with a ticket detection system of an automated fare dodger recognition arrangement as the persons board and alight the bus (“… A counting device is used to record the number of tickets and/or travel passes sold …” and “In a third step S3 of the method, a counting device 16 of the assistance system 10 records a number of tickets and/or travel passes 11 sold …” [0016 and 0021]);
detecting and counting the persons with a person detection system of an automated fare dodger recognition arrangement independently of detecting and counting the tickets of the persons as the persons board and alight the bus (“… The evaluation device 14 then divides, for example, the total weight of the passengers by an average weight, whereby a number of passengers of the motor vehicle 12 is determined or calculated, in particular estimated …” and “… These are connected to the electronic computing device 18 of the assistance system 10, which is arranged, for example, on the motor vehicle 12 or external to the motor vehicle 12, so that the weight of the passengers and/or the number of passengers determined by the evaluation device 14 is transmitted from the evaluation device 14 to the computing device 18 …” [0020 and 0024]),
the person detection system comprising an axle load measurement device which measures at least an axle load placed on at least one axle of the bus (“In this case, the motor vehicle has, for example, a chassis with a suspension, by means of which a current total weight of the motor vehicle can be determined, in particular recorded … ” and “An evaluation device 14 of the assistance system 10 arranged on the motor vehicle 12 is designed to determine a weight of passengers of the motor vehicle 12 …” [0008-0009 and 0020]);
determining a number of the detected persons from a difference between the number of persons detected as the persons board the bus and the number of persons detected as the persons alight the bus based on changes of the axle load which is either continuously or repeatedly measured by the axle load measurement device (“… This allows the current loading of the respective means of transport to be recorded down to the second …” [0012]);
comparing, with a comparison means of the automated fare dodger recognition arrangement, the number of the detected tickets with the number of the detected persons (“… An electronic computer is used to determine any discrepancy between the determined weight and the determined number of tickets and/or travel passes sold …” and “In a fourth step S4 of the method, the electronic computing device 18 determines a discrepancy between the number of passengers and the number of tickets sold …” [0016 and 0022]),
recognizing a passenger using the bus without a ticket as a fare dodger, if a difference between the number of the detected tickets and the number of the detected passengers is non-zero and carrying out targeted passenger checks when the passenger is recognized as a fare dodger (“… From these numbers, conclusions can now be drawn in the manner described about the number of fare dodgers or the probability of the existence of fare dodgers in the means of transport, so that, for example, inspectors can subsequently be given a recommendation as to when which means of transport should be inspected in order to be able to detect a high number of fare dodgers particularly effectively and efficiently” and “… Depending on the received fourth signal and thus depending on the discrepancy, the data receiver device 22 outputs a haptic and/or optical and/or acoustically perceptible indication signal, by which the controller is informed of the increased discrepancy and thus an increased probability of passengers without valid tickets and/or travel passes 11 …” [0010-0011 and 0022]).
Marvin does not teach, the person detection system being comprising a plurality of imaging or proximity sensors mounted adjacent doors of the bus; determining a number of the detected tickets from a difference between the number of tickets detected as the persons board the bus and the number of tickets detected as the persons alights the bus. However, Kranzinger teaches, the person detection system being comprising a plurality of imaging or proximity sensors mounted adjacent doors of the [means of passenger transport] (“… Cameras or infra-red cameras whose images are evaluated manually or automatically, floor-pressure sensors, optical sensors at the entrance to the transport system, or other suitable devices may be used as a device to determine the number of persons on board the transport system …” [0032-0033]);
determining a number of the detected tickets from a difference between the number of tickets detected as the persons board the [means of passenger transport](“When the number of detected valid access rights is less than the number of the persons on board the transport, and/or if a discrepancy assists between the number of detected valid access rights per access right categories and the number of persons on board the transport system par access right category, then after disembarkation into the at least one disembarkation area, monitoring of access rights will be conducted is order to identify the at least one person without valid access rights …” and “Within the scope of an advantageous embodiment of the invention, for the case that, after disembarkation, monitoring of access rights is conducted within the disembarkation area …” [0008-0010 and 0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, the person detection system being comprising a plurality of imaging or proximity sensors mounted adjacent doors of the [means of passenger transport]; determining a number of the detected tickets from a difference between the number of tickets detected as the persons board the [means of passenger transport] and the number of tickets detected as the persons alights the bus, as taught by Kranzinger with the passenger detection system of Marvin. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kranzinger that doing so would increase user convenience, fully utilizing the available capacity without detracting from the quality level of monitoring access rights [0005].
While Kranzinger teaches a means of passenger transport, Kranzinger does not teach that the means of passenger transport is a bus. However, Marvin teaches that the means of passenger transport is a bus (“The invention draws on the fact, for example, that modern means of transport such as modern city buses are equipped with suspensions which can detect the respective total weight of the respective means of transport and can provide respective signals characterising the respective detected total weight …” [0012-0013]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the bus of Marvin for the means of passenger of Kranzinger. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Marvin that doing so would be able to monitor the use of the means of transport particularly well [0007].
Marvin in view of Kranzinger does not teach, arranging a further sensor to detect at least a portion of a passenger compartment to monitor the passenger compartment, the further sensor being configured to pinpoint the location of the passenger. However, Bergdale teaches, arranging a further sensor to detect at least a portion of a passenger compartment to monitor the passenger compartment, the further sensor being configured to pinpoint the location of the passenger (“… Similarly, in the context of the embodiments in FIGS. 9-12, a “paid area” may refer to an area where only users who have paid the transit fare or who have valid electronic tickets are allowed to be. Generally, a “paid area” may represent a portion of the transit facility (for example, a transit station or a transit vehicle) allocated mainly for the authorized users of the transit service …” and “When the user 163 enters the pre-determined region 170 (FIG. 11) or a similar coverage location within the proximity area 176 (FIG. 12) with the mobile phone 17 in possession, the 3D time-of-flight camera 146 may detect the person 163 as an object in the camera's field of view 160 …” [0111-0112 and 0124]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, arranging a further sensor to detect at least a portion of a passenger compartment to monitor the passenger compartment, the further sensor being configured to pinpoint the location of the passenger, as taught by Bergdale with the passenger detection system of Marvin in view of Kranzinger. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Bergdale that doing so would facilitate gateless entry/exit for a transit service in an automated, hands-free manner [0005].
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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628