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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 June 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response file on 2 June 2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12 and 16 have been amended. Claims 19-20 have been cancelled. Claim 23 has been added. Claims 1-18 and 21-23 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites wherein the first module or a firth module is further configured to … . (lines 2-3). Suggest replacing a with “the” since the fifth module has recited in line 2 before. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with respect to Claim Objection and 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection, see p.9, filed on 2 June 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous Claim Objection and 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection are withdrawn after related claims being amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.10-11, filed on 2 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1/10 and their dependent claims 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 Claim(s) 1/10 is/are now rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) in view of Matsuda (US 2004/0021799 A1) and Nozawa et al. (CN 113104689 A). 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 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 … in Claim 14; and a fifth module configured to … and the first module or a fifth module is further configured to … in Claim 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 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 1-2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) in view of Matsuda (US 2004/0021799 A1) and Nozawa et al. (CN 113104689 A).
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).
Okamoto fails to wherein the failure of projection is indicative of an environmental obstacle or a change in the space and wherein adjusting content comprises changing the information element being projected, adjusting size comprises changing the size of the information element according to a detected level of crowdedness in the space, and adjusting location comprises adjusting a physical location of the information element to a difference surface within the space.
However, Matsuda discloses a projection-type image display system. The display system comprises a sensor which senses a projection target area and outputs sensing information. … a projectable area determination section which determines a projectable area which has no obstructions within the projection target area, based on the detection information; a projection area selection section which selects a projection area within the projectable area, based on a user selection or a predetermined reference; a projection-area/pixel-area associating section and a lens adjustment section which performs predetermined adjustments in such a manner that an image is displayed on the projection area, and an image projection section which projects an image towards the projection area, based on the input image information (Abstract).
Matsuda discloses the system can detect shadow caused by obstruction ([0077]: When a wall surface is used as a projection target area 10 for the projection of an image, the presence of obstructions such as a picture 20 or a decorative plant 22 causes shadows in those portions, making it impossible to project the image suitably) and Since this makes it possible for the projection-type image display system or the like to automatically adjust the projection of the image into an obstruction-free projection area if the position of an obstruction changes (specifically if the audience should intrude into the projection area) by sensing and performing edge detection repeatedly at a predetermined timing, the user can change the projection position in a simpler manner ([0067]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Matsuda into that of Okamoto and to include the limitation of wherein the failure of projection is indicative of an environmental obstacle or a change in the space ([0170]: Since this makes it possible to automatically adjust the image so that it is projected into an obstruction-free projection area, by performing the sensing and edge detection repeatedly at a predetermined timing if there is a change in the position of an obstruction or if more of the audience encroach into the projection area, the user can change the projection position in a simpler manner. In addition, the projection area could be determined from the positions of obstructions) and wherein adjusting content ([0102]: The lens adjustment section 160 that is part of the adjustment means outputs projection size control information to the projection size adjustment section 193, to adjust the zoom ratio of the lens 195 in such a manner that an image is projected onto the projection area that has been selected by the projection area selection section 142), and adjusting location comprises adjusting a physical location of the information element to a difference surface within the space ([0170]: see citation above) in order to project an image that avoids obstructions as suggested by Matsuda ([0007]).
Okamoto modified by Matsuda fails to disclose wherein adjusting content comprises changing the information element being projected.
However, Nozawa discloses detecting a change in the space ([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 adjusting content by changing the information element being projected ([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_image2.png
498
606
media_image2.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 the limitation of wherein adjusting content comprises changing the information element being projected 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]).
Regarding Claim 2, Okamoto as modified further discloses wherein the space is any one of an elevator lobby and a lobby with a security gate and/or an escalator landing (Nozawa [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. [n0016]: One example is an elevator display system that displays information in the elevator lobby).
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 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 3-5, 11-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) in view of Matsuda (US 2004/0021799 A1) and Nozawa et al. (CN 113104689 A) as applied to Claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Mima (US 2016/0337626 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Nozawa discloses it is possible to use multiple 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]: 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).
PNG
media_image3.png
594
638
media_image3.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_image4.png
562
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
498
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Okamoto modified by Nozawa etc. 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. Floor display is being suspended). The same reason to combine as that of Claim 3 is applied.
Regarding Claim 5, Nozawa further discloses wherein said at least one image comprises at least one information element projected on a floor surface of the space (see Fig.3/4).
Mima further teaches or suggests 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.
Regarding Claim 21, Nozawa discloses 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 ([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. [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).
Okamoto as modified fails to disclose wherein the second mode comprises increasing a size or a brightness of the information element.
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). Mima further 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 ([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).
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 add the limitation of wherein the second mode comprises increasing a size or a brightness of the information element in order to use the existing projector of Okamoto as modified 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.
Claims 6, 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) in view of Matsuda (US 2004/0021799 A1) and Nozawa et al. (CN 113104689 A) as applied to Claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (CN 109451287 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Okamoto as modified 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_image5.png
775
721
media_image5.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 as modified 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 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) in view of Matsuda (US 2004/0021799 A1) and Nozawa et al. (CN 113104689 A) as applied to Claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Yuasa et al. (US 6,550,587 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Nozawa teaches or suggests 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 ([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. [n0016]: 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. Also see Fig.3/7).
PNG
media_image3.png
594
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
562
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In addition, Yuasa discloses
PNG
media_image6.png
159
354
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(col.1 lines 11-20). Yuasa teaches or suggests the display information element can be a destination guidance display (col.2 line 65-col.3 line 2: A plurality of floor information display portions 13 for displaying information about the landing floors are disposed beside areas of the destination floor registering buttons 11 of the corresponding landing floors with the indicator bar 12 interposed, respectively), a direction indicator (col3 lines 9-10: A direction display portion 14 showing the moving direction of the car), a progress bar for elevator arrival (col.2 lines 61-64: The whole of the indicator bar 12 corresponds to the hoistway, and the car indicating mark 12a corresponds to the car 1 which is raised and lowered in the hoistway), and an emergency marking (col.1 lines 32-34: an evacuation route corresponding to the floor where the car is located is displayed by the image display device in case of emergencies such as earthquakes). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Yuasa into that of Okamoto as modified and to include the limitation of wherein the information element includes at least one of a destination guidance display, a direction indicator, a progress bar for elevator arrival, and an emergency marking in order to provide useful information for people waiting for an elevator.
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 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) in view of Matsuda (US 2004/0021799 A1), Nozawa et al. (CN 113104689 A) as applied to Claims 1 and 10 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 least one of 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.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) in view of Matsuda (US 2004/0021799 A1), Nozawa et al. (CN 113104689 A) as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Xu (US 11,935,377 B1) and VergeSense (Types of Occupancy Sensors for the Workplace, downloaded @ Types of Occupancy Sensors for the Workplace, June 13 2019).
Regarding Claim 9, Okamoto as modified further discloses wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a camera, a camera array(Okamoto Fig.1 and [0067]: FIG. 1 includes a plurality of projector devices …, and a camera 13. Matsuda [0128]: a sensor that is capable of extracting XYZ values from a multi-pixel sensor such as a CCD sensor or CMOS sensor as the sensor 60).
Okamoto as modified fails to explicitly recite the sensor comprises a laser radar, a microwave radar.
However using a laser radar and microwave radar to detect motion had been known to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (col.6 lines 18-24: The sensors 114 may implement a number of sensors including, but not limited to, motion sensors, ambient light sensors, proximity sensors (e.g., ultrasound, radar, lidar, etc.), audio sensors (e.g., a microphone), etc. In embodiments implementing a motion sensor, the sensors 114 may be configured to detect motion anywhere in the field of view monitored by the camera system 100). VergeSense further discloses wireless vision had already been known to be used as an occupancy sensor (p.3 last paragraph line 1: wireless vision sensors). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Xu and VergeSense into that of Okamoto as modified and to include a laser radar, a microwave radar and a wireless vision (Wi-Vi) apparatus as a list of sensors in order to provide a selection for occupancy detection.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2016/0112689 A1) in view of Matsuda (US 2004/0021799 A1) and Nozawa et al. (CN 113104689 A) as applied to Claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Yuasa et al. (US 6,550,587 B1) and Mima (US 2016/0337626 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Nozawa further teaches or suggests wherein the information element includes at least one of a destination guidance display, a direction indicator, a progress bar for elevator arrival, and an emergency marking ([n0016]: 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. Also see Fig. 3/7).
In addition, Yuasa discloses
PNG
media_image6.png
159
354
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(col.1 lines 11-20). Yuasa teaches or suggests the display information element can be a destination guidance display (col.2 line 65-col.3 line 2: A plurality of floor information display portions 13 for displaying information about the landing floors are disposed beside areas of the destination floor registering buttons 11 of the corresponding landing floors with the indicator bar 12 interposed, respectively), a direction indicator (col3 lines 9-10: A direction display portion 14 showing the moving direction of the car), a progress bar for elevator arrival (col.2 lines 61-64: The whole of the indicator bar 12 corresponds to the hoistway, and the car indicating mark 12a corresponds to the car 1 which is raised and lowered in the hoistway), and an emergency marking (col.1 lines 32-34: an evacuation route corresponding to the floor where the car is located is displayed by the image display device in case of emergencies such as earthquakes). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Yuasa into that of Okamoto as modified and to include the limitation of wherein the information element includes at least one of a destination guidance display, a direction indicator, a progress bar for elevator arrival, and an emergency marking in order to provide useful information for people waiting for an elevator.
Okamoto as modified further does not explicitly disclose wherein the quality criteria is a predefined criteria for a clear and intelligible image to evaluate brightness or visibility of the information element against the projection surface.
However Mima discloses 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 ([0082]). A skilled person would have recognized that the purpose of adjustment of size or brightness is to make the information more obvious and clearer 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 the quality criteria is a predefined criteria for a clear and intelligible image to evaluate brightness or visibility of the information element against the projection surface in order to make guiding information more obvious and accessible to people when the guiding information is most needed in a crowded hallway.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Muncy et al. (US 2018/0305174 A1) discloses providing guidance path to people waiting for an elevator as shown in Fig.5A/B.
Fukuda et al. (US 4,852,696 A) discloses in elevator information device. The elevator information device has displays located in each hall of a building, each of which can display the service state of the elevator (information on arrival of a car, number of passengers in the car, floors at which the car is about to stop, waiting time, position of the car) by means of pictures and characters, whereby waiting passengers can easily understand the condition of the elevator. (abstract).
Kuzunuki et al. (JP 01034883 A) discloses a display system for people waiting for an elevator.
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
Prosecution Insights