DETAILED ACTION
*Note in the following document:
1. Texts in italic bold format are limitations quoted either directly or conceptually from claims/descriptions disclosed in the instant application.
2. Texts in regular italic format are quoted directly from cited reference or Applicant’s arguments.
3. Texts with underlining are added by the Examiner for emphasis.
4. Texts with
5. Acronym “PHOSITA” stands for “Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art”.
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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response file on 5 February 2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 3, 5, 10-13 and 16 has/have been amended. Claims 21-22 has/have been added. Claims 19-20 have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection to Claim 5, see p.9, filed on 5 February 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection to Claim 5 is withdrawn after Claim 5 being amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.10-12, filed on 5 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) independent Claim 1/10 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The newly amended independent Claim(s) 1/10 is/are now rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1). See detailed rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a first/second module configured to … in Claim 10; a third/fourth module configured to … and the second module in Claim 11; the second module in Claim 12; the second module and the first module in Claim 13; a fifth module configured to … and the first module in Claim 14/16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites detecting a change in the space and/or one or more zones within the space based on a at least one of … (lines 2-3). Suggest deleting the “a” in front of “at least one of”.
Claim 5 recites ii) when determined level of crowdedness of the space and/or … exceeds …(lines 11-12). Claim 11 recites based on determined level of crowdedness of the space (lines 5-6). Suggest adding “the” in front of determined level ….
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5, 8, 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the determined level crowdedness of the space" in line 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the detected change in the space” in lines 4-5; “the determined level of crowdedness of the space” in lines 5-6.
Claim 8 recites the BIM data in line 3.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claims 11-12 and 16 have similar insufficient antecedent basis issues.
For compact prosecution purpose, the Examiner rejects Claims 4-5, 8 as if Claims 4-5, 8 depend on Claim 3 and Claims 12-13 and 16 as if Claims 12-13 and 16 depend on Claim 11, wherein above limitations are recited.
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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Okamoto discloses a method for presenting information in a space by a projection display apparatus ([0075]: A method of adjusting emission positions of projected light according to the first embodiment will be schematically described using FIGS. 2A to 2C) comprising at least one projector ([0067]: FIG. 1 schematically illustrates a multi-projector system according to a first embodiment), the method comprising:
projecting, by said projection display apparatus, at least one image on at least one surface within the space, the at least one image comprising at least one information element (Fig.1);
PNG
media_image1.png
597
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receiving sensor data from at least one sensor associated with or included in the projection display apparatus, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one camera ([0074]: The multi-projector system 1 according to the first embodiment determines the positions of the projection images 201 and 202 so that the projection images 201 and 202 have the overlapped region 21, when the projector devices 101 and 102 project the projection images 201 and 202 on the screen 14. Then, the camera 13 included in the multi-projector system 1 captures an image including the overlapped region 21 on the screen 14, and the multi-projector system 1 adjusts emission positions of projected 3light by the projector devices 101 and 102 so that the projection images 201 and 202 can be projected at correct positions, based on a result of an analysis of captured image data by the adjustment device 12. By adjustment of the emission positions of the projected light, the projection positions of the projection images are adjusted);
detecting a failure of projection of the at least one image based on the at least one image received from the at least one camera and based on at least one analyzed image not fulfilling predefined quality criteria ([0074]: The multi-projector system 1 according to the first embodiment determines the positions of the projection images 201 and 202 so that the projection images 201 and 202 have the overlapped region 21, when the projector devices 101 and 102 project the projection images 201 and 202 on the screen 14. Then, the camera 13 included in the multi-projector system 1 captures an image including the overlapped region 21 on the screen 14, and the multi-projector system 1 adjusts emission positions of projected light by the projector devices 101 and 102 so that the projection images 201 and 202 can be projected at correct positions, based on a result of an analysis of captured image data by the adjustment device 12. By adjustment of the emission positions of the projected light, the projection positions of the projection images are adjusted. Note Okamoto does not explicitly use the phrase a failure of projection of the at least one image. However since Okamoto discloses the projected images need to be corrected, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize before the cited correction, a failure has been detected so that a correction is needed); and
adjusting content, location and/or size of the at least one projected image based on the detected failure of projection ([0074]: The multi-projector system 1 according to the first embodiment determines the positions of the projection images 201 and 202 so that the projection images 201 and 202 have the overlapped region 21, when the projector devices 101 and 102 project the projection images 201 and 202 on the screen 14. Then, the camera 13 included in the multi-projector system 1 captures an image including the overlapped region 21 on the screen 14, and the multi-projector system 1 adjusts emission positions of projected light by the projector devices 101 and 102 so that the projection images 201 and 202 can be projected at correct positions, based on a result of an analysis of captured image data by the adjustment device 12. By adjustment of the emission positions of the projected light, the projection positions of the projection images are adjusted).
Regarding Claim 9, Okamoto further discloses wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a camera, a camera array, a laser radar, a microwave radar and a wireless vision (Wi-Vi) apparatus (Fig.1 and [0067]: FIG. 1 includes a plurality of projector devices …, and a camera 13).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is/are similar to Claim 1 except in the format of apparatus. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 1 is/are also applied to Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is/are similar to Claim 9 except in the format of apparatus. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 9 is/are also applied to Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is/are similar to Claim 1 except in the format of computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 1 is/are also applied to Claim 18.
Claims 2, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Nozawa et al. (CN 113104689 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Okamoto does not disclose the limitation of wherein the space is any one of an elevator lobby and a lobby with a security gate and/or an escalator landing.
However Nozawa discloses using a two projectors ([0089]: In addition, the examples shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively illustrate examples of configuring one projector 71 and 72 in one hallway, but multiple projectors can also be configured in one hallway. When multiple projectors are configured, the display area 81 and 82 are divided into multiple segments by these projectors, so that each projector projects the segmented image. Alternatively, the same image can be projected onto display areas 81 and 82 by multiple projectors in an overlapping manner to mitigate the situation where the image is not projected onto the floor surface 8 due to the presence of guests) to present information in the elevator lobby ([0016]).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nozawa discloses This application includes various means to solve the above-mentioned problems. One example is an elevator display system that displays information in the elevator lobby. It includes: a guidance unit that allocates passengers in the lobby based on information detected by a personnel detection unit that detects the presence of passengers in the lobby and information from a management unit that monitors the operation of the elevator, and determines a guidance method based on the allocation result; and a display device that displays information in the lobby in a display manner based on the guidance method determined in the guidance unit ([n0016]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Nozawa into that of Okamoto and to include the limitation of wherein the space is any one of an elevator lobby and a lobby with a security gate and/or an escalator landing in order to use the existing projector of Okamoto to provide an elevator display system and elevator display method that can appropriately guide passengers in situations such as reservations at destination floors as suggested by Nozawa ([n0014]).
Regarding Claim 7, Okamoto does not disclose the limitation of wherein the space is an elevator lobby and wherein the information comprises at least one of a hall lantern of an elevator, a destination guidance display, an elevator guide, an elevator direction indicator and a current floor indicator next to a landing device, an elevator identification information, a progress bar for elevator arrival, a time estimate for elevator arrival, an indication of elevator doors opening, a warning on closing elevator doors, an elevator out of order indication, an elevator out of service indication, a destination name and/or a logo associated with the destination, emergency markings for firemen elevators, guidance for users, such as guidance for not to use elevators in case of fire, amount of people currently in the elevator, building information, advertising, decorative projections, building branding, elevator branding, infotainment, and advertisement.
However Nozawa discloses using a two projectors ([0089]: In addition, the examples shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively illustrate examples of configuring one projector 71 and 72 in one hallway, but multiple projectors can also be configured in one hallway. When multiple projectors are configured, the display area 81 and 82 are divided into multiple segments by these projectors, so that each projector projects the segmented image. Alternatively, the same image can be projected onto display areas 81 and 82 by multiple projectors in an overlapping manner to mitigate the situation where the image is not projected onto the floor surface 8 due to the presence of guests) to present information in the elevator lobby ([0016]).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nozawa discloses This application includes various means to solve the above-mentioned problems. One example is an elevator display system that displays information in the elevator lobby. It includes: a guidance unit that allocates passengers in the lobby based on information detected by a personnel detection unit that detects the presence of passengers in the lobby and information from a management unit that monitors the operation of the elevator, and determines a guidance method based on the allocation result; and a display device that displays information in the lobby in a display manner based on the guidance method determined in the guidance unit ([n0016]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Nozawa into that of Okamoto and to include the limitation of wherein the space is an elevator lobby and wherein the information comprises at least one of a hall lantern of an elevator, a destination guidance display, an elevator guide, an elevator direction indicator and a current floor indicator next to a landing device, an elevator identification information, a progress bar for elevator arrival, a time estimate for elevator arrival, an indication of elevator doors opening, a warning on closing elevator doors, an elevator out of order indication, an elevator out of service indication, a destination name and/or a logo associated with the destination, emergency markings for firemen elevators, guidance for users, such as guidance for not to use elevators in case of fire, amount of people currently in the elevator, building information, advertising, decorative projections, building branding, elevator branding, infotainment, and advertisement in order to use the existing projector of Okamoto to provide an elevator display system and elevator display method that can appropriately guide passengers in situations such as reservations at destination floors as suggested by Nozawa ([n0014]).
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is/are similar to Claim 7 except in the format of apparatus. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 7 is/are also applied to Claim 15.
Claims 3-5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) as applied to Claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Nozawa et al. (CN 113104689 A) and Mima (US 2016/0337626 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Okamoto fails to disclose detecting a change in the space and/or one or more zones within the space based on a at least one of: change in building information management, BIM, data received from a BIM system, sensor data from said at least one sensor, and data received from an elevator control system, and/or determining a level of crowdedness of the space and/or one or more zones within the space based on sensor data received from the at least one sensor associated with or included in the projection display apparatus, and adjusting content, location and/or size of the at least one projected image based on the detected change in the space and/or the determined level of crowdedness of the space, wherein size and/or brightness of the at least one information element is increased when the determined level of crowdedness of the space and/or one or more zones within the space exceeds a predetermined threshold value.
However Nozawa discloses using a two projectors ([n0089]: In addition, the examples shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively illustrate examples of configuring one projector 71 and 72 in one hallway, but multiple projectors can also be configured in one hallway. When multiple projectors are configured, the display area 81 and 82 are divided into multiple segments by these projectors, so that each projector projects the segmented image. Alternatively, the same image can be projected onto display areas 81 and 82 by multiple projectors in an overlapping manner to mitigate the situation where the image is not projected onto the floor surface 8 due to the presence of guests) to present information in the elevator lobby ([0016]).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nozawa further discloses
detecting a change in the space and/or one or more zones within the space based on at least one of: change in building information management, BIM, data received from a BIM system, sensor data from said at least one sensor, and data received from an elevator control system ([n0016]: a guidance unit that allocates passengers in the lobby based on information detected by a personnel detection unit that detects the presence of passengers in the lobby and information from a management unit that monitors the operation of the elevator, and determines a guidance method based on the allocation result; and a display device that displays information in the lobby in a display manner based on the guidance method determined in the guidance unit), and/or
determining a level of crowdedness of the space and/or one or more zones within the space based on sensor data received from the at least one sensor associated with or included in the projection display apparatus ([n0096]: The guidance unit 6 determines whether the number of customers using the lobby is above a predetermined threshold (step S12). [n0058]: A human detection sensor 1 is installed in the elevator lobby. As a human detection sensor 1, it uses surveillance cameras, infrared sensors, card authentication devices, beacons, etc.), and
adjusting content, location and/or size of the at least one projected image based on the detected change in the space and/or the determined level of crowdedness of the space ([n0109]-[n0110]: In the example in Figure 7, a queuing line guide 115 is displayed on the floor surface 8 between the two lobby doors 11 and 12, and queuing lines 116 and 117 are also displayed on the floor surface 8 in front of each number's lobby door 11 and 12. Then, on floor surface 8, there are directional displays 111 and 112 showing the stop floors of each machine in numerical form, and directional displays 113 and 114 showing arrows indicating movement to each of the stop floors. The guide shows that 118 indicates the first position of each column. By displaying these directions (111-118), the lobby's users can be appropriately assigned and directed to each machine).
PNG
media_image3.png
498
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Nozawa into that of Okamoto and to include above missing limitations in order to provide an elevator display system and elevator display method that can appropriately guide passengers in situations such as reservations at destination floors as suggested by Nozawa ([n0014]).
Okamoto modified by Nozawa discloses using projectors to guide traffic in an elevator hallway. But Okamoto as modified fails to further disclose wherein size and/or brightness of the at least one information element is increased when the determined level of crowdedness of the space and/or one or more zones within the space exceeds a predetermined threshold value.
However Mima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches or suggests wherein size and/or brightness of the at least one information element is increased when the determined level of crowdedness of the space and/or one or more zones within the space exceeds a predetermined threshold value ([0102]: Further, the projection size of the projection image may be changed according to the distance to projection position P1 from person 6. [0082]: Controller 210 controls image generator 400 based on the read image quality data table to generate projection image 10 by performing chromaticity correction or brightness correction of a set value according to the attribute information of floor surface 81 and wall surface 82. A skilled person would have recognized that the purpose of adjustment of size or brightness is to make the information more obvious to viewers).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Mima into that of Okamoto as modified and to include the limitation of wherein size and/or brightness of the at least one information element is increased when the determined level of crowdedness of the space and/or one or more zones within the space exceeds a predetermined threshold value in order to make guiding information more obvious and accessible to people when the guiding information is most needed in a crowded hallway.
Regarding Claim 4, Mima further teaches or suggests wherein projecting at least one information element is suspended when the determined level of crowdedness of the space and/or one or more zones within the space exceeds a predetermined threshold value ([0058]: In a case where the projection of the projection image is highly likely to be blocked such as a case where there is crowd 70 on floor surface 81, projector apparatus 100 exceptionally changes to project projection image 10 to wall surface 82 from floor surface 81. Wall display is being suspended). The same reason to combine as that of Claim 3 is applied.
Regarding Claim 5, Mima further teaches or suggests wherein said at least one image comprises at least one information element projected on a floor surface of the space, and wherein: projecting the at least one information element on the floor surface is suspended i) on basis the detected change in the space and/or in one or more zones within the space, and/or ii) when the determined level of crowdedness of the space and/or in one or more zones within the space exceeds a predetermined threshold value, and/or iii) when a failure of projection of the at least one image on the floor surface is detected, and/or projecting the at least one information element on the floor surface is automatically switched into projecting the at least one information element on a wall surface of the space i) on basis the detected change in the space and/or in one or more zones within the space, and/or ii) when determined level of crowdedness of the space and/or in one or more zones within the space exceeds a predetermined threshold value, and/or iii) when a failure of projection of the at least one on the floor surface is detected ([0058]: However, there may be a case where a region required to project projection image 10 cannot be ensured on floor surface 81, since floor surface 81 is crowded with many persons and the projection is obstructed. Therefore, in the present exemplary embodiment, the state of obstructions 7 other than person 6 on floor surface 81 is detected as illustrated in FIG. 6B. In this case, the obstruction means an object (person or object) that blocks the projection image from reaching the floor surface when projector apparatus 100 projects the image on the projection plane such as floor surface 81. In a case where the projection of the projection image is highly likely to be blocked such as a case where there is crowd 70 on floor surface 81, projector apparatus 100 exceptionally changes to project projection image 10 to wall surface 82 from floor surface 81. Projector apparatus 100 projects projection image 10 on projection position P2 on wall surface 82 with a height by which person 6 tracked by projector apparatus 100 is easy to see projection image 10. Thus, projection image 10 can attract attention of person 6 even in crowd 70). The same reason to combine as that of Claim 3 is applied.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is/are similar to Claim 3 except in the format of apparatus. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 3 is/are also applied to Claim 11. In addition, Claim 11 recites the apparatus comprises an interface for receiving information management (BIM) data from a BIM system, and/or an interface for receiving information from an elevator control system. Nozawa teaches or suggests an interface for receiving information management (BIM) data from a BIM system, and/or an interface for receiving information from an elevator control system ([n0061]: The control panels 4 and 5 of the two elevators are connected in the management system 3. Furthermore, the management system 3 controls the operation of the two elevator cars via control panels 4 and 5. That is, the management system 3 sends instructions to the first control panel 4, which controls the operation of elevator No. 1, and the second control panel 5, which controls the operation of elevator No. 2, to control the operation of the cars of each elevator. In addition, the management system 3 obtains information on the operating status of each machine from the first control panel 4 and the second control panel 5).
Regarding Claims 12-13, Claims 12-13 is/are similar to Claims 4-5 except in the format of apparatus. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claims 4-5 is/are also applied to Claims 12-13.
Claims 6, 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (CN 109451287 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Okamoto fails to disclose wherein the at least one surface is at least one door leaf, and wherein the at least one image projected on the at least one door leaf is dynamically adjusted according to status and/or movement of the at least one door leaf based on at least one of the sensor data and the data received from the elevator control system.
However Lin discloses providing a projection method based on an elevator, comprising: receiving elevator status information sent by an elevator controller; and moving the projected image according to the elevator status information ([0009]). Lin further discloses wherein the at least one surface is at least one door leaf (Fig.3),
PNG
media_image4.png
775
721
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and wherein the at least one image projected on the at least one door leaf is dynamically adjusted according to status and/or movement of the at least one door leaf based on at least one of the sensor data and the data received from the elevator control system ([0078]: wherein the at least one surface is at least one door leaf, and wherein the at least one image projected on the at least one door leaf is dynamically adjusted according to status and/or movement of the at least one door leaf based on at least one of the sensor data and the data received from the elevator control system).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Lin into that of Okamoto and to include the limitation of wherein the at least one surface is at least one door leaf, and wherein the at least one image projected on the at least one door leaf is dynamically adjusted according to status and/or movement of the at least one door leaf based on at least one of the sensor data and the data received from the elevator control system in order to use the existing projector of Okamoto and to make efficient use of elevator doors, promotional brochures have been pasted on them as suggested by Lin ([0004]).
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is/are similar to Claim 6 except in the format of apparatus. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 6 is/are also applied to Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 22, Lin further teaches or suggests splitting the at least one information element into at least two parts and independently moving each part synchronously with a movement of respective elevator door leaves during elevator door operation ([0067]: Specifically, when the elevator door status information is elevator door open, the projected image is moved according to the stored elevator door opening curve. The specific process of moving the projected image can be achieved by controlling the micromirror area in the projection device. Finally, the projection range of the projected image displayed in the elevator door is displayed synchronously as the elevator door opens, creating the visual effect that the projected image is like it is pasted on the elevator door, and it recedes into the door frame as the elevator door opens). The same reason to combine as that of Claim 6 is applied.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) in view of Nozawa et al. (CN 113104689 A) and Mima (US 2016/0337626 A1) as applied to Claims 3 and 11 above, and further in view of Benromano et al. (US 2021/0192099 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Okamoto as modified fails to disclose adjusting and/or calibrating the at least one projected image based on a three dimensional map or model of the space generated based on at least one of the BIM data and the sensor data.
However Benromano teaches or suggests adjusting and/or calibrating the at least one projected image ([0027]: The APR device may monitor a local or proximate environment and project instructions or images onto surfaces located therein. The APR device may be capable of adaptively changing and aligning projected images or instructions in correspondence with environmental variations, construction advancement and/or repositioning. In particular, the APR device may vary projected images or instructions based on any of: updated or modified plans; environmental changes; and, changes in device location relative to the environment. In some embodiments the APR device may also provide feedback regarding the progress of a construction, for example with respect to a predefined schedule, or on the quality and accuracy with which the build is progressing, for example with respect to deviation from a predefined build or design plan) based on a three dimensional map or model of the space generated based on at least one of the BIM data and the sensor data ([0049]: In some embodiments, plans data 150 may comprise computer aided design (CAD) sketches, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), graphical images, text, arrows, user defined information, and the like. Plans data 150, or portions thereof, may also comprise building information modeling (BIM) and may include digital descriptions of aspects of the built asset, for example aspects of 3D structures, time schedules, costs, and the like).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Benromano into that of Okamoto as modified and to include the limitation of adjusting and/or calibrating the at least one projected image based on a three dimensional map or model of the space generated based on at least one of the BIM data and the sensor data in for a more accurate projection.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is/are similar to Claim 8 except in the format of apparatus. Note Benromano further discloses generating a three-dimensional map or model of the space based on at elle4ast one of the BIM data and the sensor data (0049]: In some embodiments, plans data 150 may comprise computer aided design (CAD) sketches, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), graphical images, text, arrows, user defined information, and the like. Plans data 150, or portions thereof, may also comprise building information modeling (BIM) and may include digital descriptions of aspects of the built asset, for example aspects of 3D structures, time schedules, costs, and the like). Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim is/are also applied to Claim 16.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nozawa et al. (CN 113104689 A), Kawai (US 2009/003889 A1) and Mima (US 2016/0337626 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Okamoto fails to disclose determining a level of crowdedness of the space as a spatial density ratio or percentage, and switching the projection display apparatus from a first mode of operation to a second mode of operation when the spatial density ratio or percentage exceeds a predefined threshold, wherein the second mode comprises increasing a size or a brightness of the information element.
However Nozawa discloses using a two projectors ([0089]: In addition, the examples shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively illustrate examples of configuring one projector 71 and 72 in one hallway, but multiple projectors can also be configured in one hallway. When multiple projectors are configured, the display area 81 and 82 are divided into multiple segments by these projectors, so that each projector projects the segmented image. Alternatively, the same image can be projected onto display areas 81 and 82 by multiple projectors in an overlapping manner to mitigate the situation where the image is not projected onto the floor surface 8 due to the presence of guests) to present information in the elevator lobby ([0016]).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nozawa further teaches As a threshold in step S12, for example, when the number of elevators is set to 2 or more, the threshold is set to the number of passengers corresponding to 2 elevators or a given number close to the number of passengers corresponding to 2 elevators. In this way, since the guidance unit 6 already knows the corresponding number of passengers for the two elevators, it can allocate passengers to the elevators of the two elevators to minimize the number of stops and travel time for passengers in the two elevators ([n0100]).
Kawai teaches The crowdedness or uncrowdedness of the elevator region 8 is detected by comparing occupancy ratios of those stranded in the building 1 in the rescue floor detection ranges with a preset threshold ([0029]).
Mima, in the same field of endeavor, teaches or suggests wherein size and/or brightness of the at least one information element is increased when the determined level of crowdedness of the space and/or one or more zones within the space exceeds a predetermined threshold value ([0102]: Further, the projection size of the projection image may be changed according to the distance to projection position P1 from person 6. [0082]: Controller 210 controls image generator 400 based on the read image quality data table to generate projection image 10 by performing chromaticity correction or brightness correction of a set value according to the attribute information of floor surface 81 and wall surface 82. A skilled person would have recognized that the purpose of adjustment of size or brightness is to make the information more obvious to viewers).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Nozawa, Kawai and Mima into that of Okamoto and to add the limitation of determining a level of crowdedness of the space as a spatial density ratio or percentage, and switching the projection display apparatus from a first mode of operation to a second mode of operation when the spatial density ratio or percentage exceeds a predefined threshold, wherein the second mode comprises increasing a size or a brightness of the information element in order to use the existing projector of Okamoto to provide an elevator display system and elevator display method that can appropriately guide passengers in situations such as reservations at destination floors as suggested by Nozawa ([n0014]) since Okamoto’s projector can be used in any field of application including crowded elevator hallway and it is a common sense that an increasing size or brightness of guiding information would be more obvious to attract people’s attention.
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 YINGCHUN HE whose telephone number is (571)270-7218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
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, Xiao M Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
/YINGCHUN HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613