DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/689,520 filed on 3/6/2024.
Claims 1-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 16-35 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on
12/15/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-20, 26-28, 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruenbaum (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0200355 A1).
In regard to Claim 16, Gruenbaum teaches a method for predicting a state of occupancy of a passenger seat, the method comprising:
Determining an actual state of occupancy of the passenger seat by using sensors (see Paragraph 13 lines 1-5, Paragraph 63 lines 12-15 teaching a passenger guidance method wherein the occupancy states of the seats 72 can be determined by means of the seat occupancy sensor 80 present in every seat, and wherein multiple sensors can be used to determine occupancy states, including cameras and mass sensors); and
Acquiring information associated with the future state of occupancy of the passenger seat (see Paragraph 18 lines 1-4 teaching that occupancy levels are calculated before a next stop is reached and at the same time passenger movements to be expected at the next stop are taken into account);
Determining prediction data relating to the future state of occupancy of the passenger seat based on the actual state of occupancy and the associated information by using a data processing apparatus (see Paragraph 18 lines 1-15 teaching that occupancy levels are calculated before a next stop is reached, at least partially based on passenger movements to be expected at the next stop, and reservation data is also resorted to in order to determine the expected passenger movements); and
Outputting the prediction data to passengers by using an output apparatus, the outputting including personalizing the prediction data to a passenger in dependence on travel data of that passenger and outputting the personalized data to a mobile terminal device of that passenger (see Paragraph 19 lines 1-3, Paragraph 20 teaching that unoccupied, unblocked and unreserved passenger seats are preferably displayed to the passenger and offered to him or her for blocking on the passenger's mobile device).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting “outputting . . . personaliz[ed] prediction data to a passenger in dependence on travel data of that passenger” to mean that personalized occupancy data is sent to passengers. The Examiner is interpreting that the information being sent to a personal device of said passenger is enough to satisfy the “personalization” aspect of this limitation. It is implausible to think that a passenger would not rely on their own “travel data” when selecting travel options, nor that travel data sent to someone’s personal device is not at least somewhat “personalized” for that passenger, because they are viewing it on their personal device.
In regard to Claim 17, Gruenbaum further teaches carrying out the step of acquiring the information associated with the future state of occupancy by acquiring passenger data associated with the passenger seat (see Paragraph 19 lines 1-3 teaching that system identifies whether specific seats have already been reserved).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting reservation data as satisfying “passenger data associated with the passenger seat.”
In regard to Claim 18, Gruenbaum further teaches providing reservation data associated with the passenger seat as the passenger data (see Paragraph 19 lines 1-3 teaching that system identifies whether specific seats have already been reserved).
In regard to Claim 19, Gruenbaum further teaches determining the future state of occupancy of the passenger seat for at least one of a predetermined location along a route or a predetermined time based on the actual state of occupancy and the associated information (see Paragraph 19 lines 1-3, Paragraph 33 lines 8-11, Paragraph 47 lines 11-14 teaching that the system identifies whether specific seats on a train have already been reserved, and calculates occupancy levels based on individual stops along the vehicle’s route); and
Outputting the future state of occupancy of the passenger seat of a vehicle for a predetermined stop of the vehicle to passengers at least one of outside or inside the vehicle by using the output apparatus (see Paragraph 18 lines 4-8, Paragraph 19 lines 1-3 teaching that unoccupied, unblocked and unreserved passenger seats are preferably displayed to the passenger and offered to him or her for blocking, and that by means of announcements or displays at the next stop, passengers boarding there can be directed according to the occupancy levels to be expected after the passengers disembarking at said next stop have alighted).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting reservation data as satisfying a “future state of occupancy of the passenger seat for . . . a predetermined time.”
In regard to Claim 20, Gruenbaum further teaches determining prediction data for a plurality of passenger seats in the vehicle (see Paragraph 19 lines 1-3 teaching that unoccupied, unblocked and unreserved passenger seats are preferably displayed to the passenger and offered to him or her for blocking);
Determining a route guidance for passengers based on the prediction data (see Paragraph 19 lines 3-6 teaching that passengers are then guided to passenger seats that they have blocked); and
Outputting the route guidance to passengers by using an output apparatus (see Paragraph 10 teaching that passengers can be guided by means of announcements or displays at vehicle stops and/or in the vehicle itself and/or on a mobile device of the passenger, for example a smartphone or a tablet computer).
In regard to Claim 26, Gruenbaum further teaches at least one memory for storing the actual state of occupancy and for storing the associated information (see Paragraph 21 lines 1-10 teaching that system contains an electronic data processing system in which vehicle-specific data, passenger specific data, and all data relating to a passenger's journey may be stored).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting “an electronic data processing system in which vehicle-specific and/or passenger specific data may be stored” as satisfying “at least one memory for storing the actual state of occupancy and for storing the associated information.”
The rest of Claim 26 is substantially similar to Claim 16 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 16 above for analysis.
Claim 27 is substantially similar to Claim 20 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 20 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 28, Gruenbaum further teaches wherein said output apparatus is adapted to output at least one of the prediction data or the route guidance at least one of visually, haptically or acoustically (see Paragraph teaching that passengers can be guided by means of announcements or displays at vehicle stops and/or in the vehicle itself and/or on a mobile device of the passenger, for example a smartphone or a tablet computer).
Claim 30 is substantially similar to Claim 26 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 26 above for analysis.
Claim 31 is substantially similar to Claim 20 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 20 above for analysis.
Claim 32 is substantially similar to Claim 28 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 28 above for analysis.
Claim 33 is substantially similar to Claim 29 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 29 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 34, Gruenbaum further teaches a non-transitory computer program product, that when executed on a processor, cause the system to carry out a method (see Paragraph 33 lines 1-8 teaching that if a camera is provided as the device for determining the occupation state, the camera is connected to a computing device, such as a Raspberry Pi with a corresponding computer program, which is configured to determine the occupation state of passenger seats covered by the camera from the images recorded by the camera).
The rest of Claim 34 is substantially similar to Claim 16 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 16 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 35, Gruenbaum further teaches a non-transitory computer program, comprising instructions stored thereon, that when executed on a processor, cause the system to carry out a method (see Paragraph 33 lines 1-8 teaching that if a camera is provided as the device for determining the occupation state, the camera is connected to a computing device, such as a Raspberry Pi with a corresponding computer program, which is configured to determine the occupation state of passenger seats covered by the camera from the images recorded by the camera); and
Outputting personalized route guidance (see Paragraph 19 lines 1-6, Paragraph 20 lines 1-4 teaching that unreserved seats are displayed to the passenger via a mobile device, and then the passenger is guided to the seat).
The rest of Claim 35 is substantially similar to Claim 20 (the bulk of both claims). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 20 above for analysis.
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.
Claims 21, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Gruenbaum (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0200355 A1) in view of Linguanti (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0347911 A1), in further view of Nathan (U.S. Patent 6,901,322 B1).
In regard to Claim 21, Gruenbaum fails to teach determining a number and a position of passenger seats in the vehicle that are free; and
Determining at least part of the route guidance in dependence on the number and the position of the passenger seats that are free.
However, Linguanti teaches determining a number and a position of passenger seats in the vehicle that are free (see Paragraph 56 lines 1-6 teaching an amusement park attraction seating method which executes instructions for arranging groups and/or individual guests 22 onto an attraction ride vehicle 108 based on location and quantity of unoccupied seats in the attraction ride vehicle 108); and
Determining at least part of the route guidance in dependence on the number and the position of the passenger seats that are free (see Paragraph 69 lines 1-4 teaching that the seating application 126 may also implement logic-based seating rules, which are used to provide guidance to an operator 160 using an operator interface 110 to efficiently load the attraction ride vehicle 108).
Gruenbaum and Linguanti are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods used to manage the onboarding and/or offboarding of passengers from vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gruenbaum’s invention to incorporate a feature that provided passenger boarding guidance based on the number and locations of open seats as taught by Linguanti. Doing so could increase passenger onboarding efficiency by reducing the amount of time required to find open seats for passengers.
Gruenbaum further fails to teach wherein the seats are to become free; and
Wherein the determining is based on prediction data.
However, Nathan teaches wherein the seats are to become free (see Abstract lines 1-3, Column 5 lines 38-42 teaching a method of predicting an empty seat condition, including whether a certain seat is currently occupied); and
Wherein the determining is based on prediction data (see Abstract lines 1-9 teaching that the system makes predictions regarding an empty seat condition, based on sensor readings).
Gruenbaum and Nathan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods that work with information relating to the future occupancy status of passenger seating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gruenbaum’s invention to incorporate a feature that uses data to make a prediction about whether a seat will become available as taught by Nathan. Doing so could increase the efficiency of a transportation boarding process by advertising which seats will become free to subsequent passengers before the seats have actually become free.
In regard to Claim 24, Gruenbaum further teaches directing boarding passengers to free passenger seats by outputting route guidance (see Paragraph 19 lines 1-6 teaching that unoccupied, unblocked and unreserved passenger seats are displayed to passengers and offered for blocking, wherein the passenger is then guided to the passenger seat that they blocked).
Gruenbaum fails to teach determining a number and a position of free passenger seats in the vehicle; and
Determining at least one further part of the route guidance in dependence on the number and the position of the free passenger seats.
However, Linguanti teaches determining a number and a position of free passenger seats in the vehicle (see Paragraph 56 lines 1-6 teaching that the method executes instructions for arranging groups and/or individual guests 22 onto an attraction ride vehicle 108 based on location and quantity of unoccupied seats in the attraction ride vehicle 108); and
Determining at least one further part of the route guidance in dependence on the number and the position of the free passenger seats (see Paragraph 69 lines 1-4 teaching that the seating application 126 may also implement logic-based seating rules, which are used to provide guidance to an operator 160 using an operator interface 110 to efficiently load the attraction ride vehicle 108).
Gruenbaum and Linguanti are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods used to manage the onboarding and/or offboarding of passengers from vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gruenbaum’s invention to incorporate a feature that provided passenger boarding guidance based on the number and locations of open seats as taught by Linguanti. Doing so could increase passenger onboarding efficiency by reducing the amount of time required to find open seats for passengers.
The rest of Claim 24 is substantially similar to Claim 21 (wherein the determining is based on prediction data). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 21 above for analysis.
Claims 22, 23, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Gruenbaum (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0200355 A1) in view of Cho (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0263088 A1).
In regard to Claim 22, Gruenbaum fails to teach specifying a uniform traffic direction in at least one zone along the vehicle based on the route guidance.
However, Cho teaches specifying a uniform traffic direction in at least one zone along the vehicle based on the route guidance (see Paragraph 9, Claim 1 teaching a passenger evacuation system for a train, wherein the system provides an evacuation direction guidance system capable of efficiently informing passengers of an evacuation direction within a train).
Gruenbaum and Cho are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that guide passengers as they move throughout a train. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gruenbaum’s invention to incorporate a feature that displays a guidance direction within the vehicle as taught by Cho. Doing so could increase the speed at which passengers could move around the vehicle.
In regard to Claim 23, Gruenbaum fails to teach directing disembarking passengers from a predetermined zone of the vehicle to predetermined doors of the vehicle based on the route guidance.
However, Cho teaches directing disembarking passengers from a predetermined zone of the vehicle to predetermined doors of the vehicle based on the route guidance (see Paragraphs 17, 46 teaching that the passenger evacuation direction may be indicated by an arrow indicating the evacuation direction from the current positions of the passengers to a safe place, such as the train exit through the doors to the outside of the train).
Gruenbaum and Cho are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that guide passengers as they move throughout a train. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gruenbaum’s invention to incorporate a feature that directs passengers from a specific location to the doors of the vehicle as taught by Cho. Doing so could increase safety for an evacuation system by directing passengers from areas where they are located to doors exiting the vehicle.
In regard to Claim 29, Gruenbaum fails to teach wherein said output apparatus has at least one traffic direction display for displaying a traffic direction specified by the route guidance.
However, Cho teaches wherein said output apparatus has at least one traffic direction display for displaying a traffic direction specified by the route guidance (see Claim 1 teaching an evacuation direction display unit which receives the passenger evacuation direction information generated by the evacuation direction generation unit, and displays a passenger evacuation direction on an object positioned at the periphery of the train).
Gruenbaum and Cho are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that guide passengers as they move throughout a train. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gruenbaum’s invention to incorporate a feature displays a traffic direction determined by a route guidance system as taught by Cho. Doing so could increase safety for an evacuation system by presenting a logical, most-efficient evacuation direction via an easily observable display at a given location within a vehicle.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Gruenbaum (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0200355 A1) in view of Linguanti (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0347911 A1), in further view of Nathan (U.S. Patent 6,901,322 B1), in further view of Kim (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0180485 A1).
In regard to Claim 25, Gruenbaum fails to teach choosing a duration of outputting the route guidance to a section having a plurality of free spots in dependence on the number of free spots in that section.
However, Kim teaches choosing a duration of outputting the route guidance to a section having a plurality of free spots in dependence on the number of free spots in that section (see Paragraph 381, Paragraph 427 teaching a vehicle control method that guides a vehicle to a parking lot, and when the parking lot to which the vehicle is currently guided is full and thus parking is not possible, a processor 870 automatically changes the path information to information relating to a path to an alternative to the parking lot).
Gruenbaum and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that direct users to unoccupied sections within larger areas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gruenbaum’s invention to incorporate a feature that outputs route guidance to a specific area based on the amount of free sections within that area as taught by Kim. Doing so could improve a user’s ability to navigate to an unoccupied section by only providing guidance to sections that are unoccupied while they remain unoccupied.
The rest of Claim 25 is substantially similar to Claim 19 (wherein the spots are seats within a vehicle, rather than parking spaces within a parking area). Please refer to the rejection of Claim 19 above for analysis.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments and remarks with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of Claim 16 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The objections to Claims 34, 35 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
All 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations have been withdrawn.
All 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
All 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
The Applicant argues that the Gruenbaum (primary) reference does not anticipate the Applicants’ independent claims, because it teaches a real-time seat availability system that identifies what seats are available now, as opposed to the presently claimed invention, which is directed to a predictive occupancy forecasting system that predicts what seats will be available in the future. The Examiner disagrees. Figure 1 of Gruenbaum teaches a system that determines “occupation states of passenger seats” (current data), and then calculates “occupancy level[s] of passenger seats corresponding to seat specifications for different vehicle areas taking into account passenger movements expected at [the] next stop.” Paragraph 18 lines 1-4 teach that “occupancy levels are calculated before a next stop is reached and at the same time passenger movements to be expected at the next stop are taken into account.” This is not “current data,” but data associated with a future occupancy level. Paragraph 19 lines 1-3 teaches that “[u]noccupied, unblocked and unreserved passenger seats are preferably displayed to the passenger and offered to him or her for blocking.” This is not “future data,” but data associated with current, known occupancy levels. The primary reference teaches all limitations in the independent claims.
The Applicant further argues that the Gruenbaum reference fails to teach “determining a route guidance for passengers based on the prediction data.” The Examiner disagrees. Paragraph 8 teaches “guiding a passenger to a passenger seat arranged in a vehicle [by] coupling a near-field communication device arranged in the vehicle to a mobile device of the passenger, transmitting passenger-specific journey data from the mobile device to the near-field communication device, synchronizing the passenger-specific journey data with data of a passenger seat management system and determining the most suitable unoccupied passenger seats for said passenger, and guiding the passenger to at least one of said determined, unoccupied passenger seats.” Regarding the “passenger seat management system,” Paragraph 21 lines 20-22 teaches that “[h]istorical occupancy and boarding data of the vehicle may also be stored in the passenger seat management system.” Paragraph 22 lines 3-8 teaches that “ reservation data is transmitted as passenger-specific journey data from the mobile device to the near-field communication device and synchronized with data of the passenger seat management system.” The “passenger seat management system” taught by the Gruenbaum reference guides passengers to seat locations based on data derived from current data, as well as data relating to expected future occupancy levels.
The Applicant further argues that the Linguanti, Nathan, Cho and Kim references cited in the previous Office Action are non-analogous. The Examiner disagrees. Gruenbaum and Kim both teach systems that guide users to unoccupied areas during travel. Gruenbaum, Linguanti, and Cho all teach methods of efficiently embarking or disembarking passengers onto or off of vehicles. Gruenbaum and Nathan both teach systems designed to determine seat occupancy.
The previously presented claims remain rejected for reasons similar to those used to reject Claim 16, or under the rationales provided in the previous office action.
Conclusion
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 PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights