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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The 03/26/2026 Amendments are entered. Claims 22, 35, and 36 are amended. No claims are canceled or newly added. Claims 22-36 are pending.
Regarding the 03/26/2026 Remarks
The Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments made in the 03/26/2026 Remarks. However, these arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 22 and 24-27, 29, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240050304 A1 to Kilim, Moshe et al. (hereinafter “Kilim”) in view of US 20190232868 A1 to Lenneman, Joseph et al. (hereinafter “Lenneman”).
Regarding claim 22, Kilim teaches a method for providing non-visual guidance for passing through a door, the method being performed by a guidance device, the method comprising:
determining that a person is near the door and that non-visual guidance is to be provided to the person, which comprises detecting a nearby user device using wireless communication ([0024]: “The MD of the user can be configured to send each one of the WTRs a request to transmit its ID. The request can be sent via the Bluetooth module of the MD.”) and determining, based on an identity of the door, that the user device is configured to indicate a need for the non-visual guidance for passing through the door ([0072]; [0106]-[0108]: Moshe associates each door with a wireless transmitter/receiver WTR having a unique ID. This reads on a door identity. The RSSI algorithm uses the ID’s to determine which door is nearest to the mobile device MD. The system triggers the speaker associated with the WTR of the nearest door to guide the user to that door. This reads on using the identity of the nearest door to activate the speaker associated with that door to provide guidance. The MD requesting the location of the nearest door causing the guidance to be issued broadly reads on it indicating a need for the guidance.), wherein the configuration is obtained using direct communication with the user device (([0072]; [0106]-[0108]: Using the RSSI algorithm (communication between the WTR’s and the MD) reads on obtaining the configuration of the mobile device.) or in communication with a server (Use of the term “or” requires consideration of only one of the listed options.);
determining an indication of location of the person in relation to the guidance device or the door ([0106]: “Then, the RSSI value that is related to the relevant WTRs can be compared 434 in order to point on the door with the highest RSSI as the nearest door.” Knowing which door the person is nearest to reads on at least indicating the location of the person in relation to the guidance device/door.).
providing the non-visual guidance to the person for passing through the door, wherein the non-visual guidance is based on the indication of location, wherein the providing non-visual guidance comprises at least one of generating sound for output on speakers mounted near the door ([0107]: “Then a speaker that is associated with the nearest door may start giving wayfinding instructions toward that door.”), sending a signal to the user device for generating a sound for output to the person (Use of the term “at least one of” requires consideration of only one of the listed options.), or sending a signal to the user device for generating a vibration for output to the person (Use of the term “at least one of” requires consideration of only one of the listed options.).
While Kilim teaches using RSSI wireless ranging to determine which door is nearest at [0106], thus to establishing a location of the person in relation to the door for guidance through that door, Kilim does not appear to expressly teach determining an indication of location of the person in relation to the guidance device or door by at least one of using an image captured by a camera to determine a distance from the camera to the person or determining a distance to the user device using wireless ranging.
However, Lenneman teaches determining an indication of location of the person in relation to the guidance device or door by at least one of using an image captured by a camera to determine a distance from the camera to the person or determining a distance to the user device using wireless ranging (Abstract, [0036]; [0046]; [0056]-[0057]: Lenneman uses cameras and wireless-based unique identifiers as part of sensors 122 to determine the distance between the passenger and the vehicle on which a door for entry is mounted via proximity module 204. This reads on using both a camera and wireless ranging to determine a distance to the user device.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of locating a visually impaired person with a camera and using that information to guide the person to a door disclosed in Kilim with the method of using a camera to find the distance between a visually impaired person and a target, ultimately guiding the person via feedback based on the distance taught in Lenneman. Doing so would have improved the guidance of the person by providing more metrics by which the feedback may aid the person in finding the door (for example, by “increasing alert frequency as the distance between the passenger and the vehicle 102 decreases . . . “ as taught in Lenneman [0047].
Regarding claim 24, the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman teaches the method according to Claim 22.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the determining an indication of location and providing non-visual guidance is repeated until the person passes through the door.
However, Lenneman further teaches wherein the determining an indication of location and providing non-visual guidance is repeated until the person passes through the door (Lenneman [0046]: “In an implementation, the alert module 208 transmits alerts that have an increasing alert frequency as the distance between the passenger and the vehicle 102 decreases”; [0053]: “Once the passenger has entered the vehicle 102, the door management module 212 provides data to the alert module 208 to cause the alert module 208 to terminate the alerts.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for generating guidance based on distance for a visually impaired person to aid passage through a particular doorway disclosed in the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman with the alert module that receives location indication data in the form of a distance and provides audible signals until terminated by entry of the passenger further taught in Lenneman because it would have reduced noise pollution by providing the alerts only as long as they are needed while reducing excessive noise, improving the comfort of those nearby.
Regarding claim 25, the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman further teaches the method according to Claim 24, wherein the non-visual guidance comprises a first modulation of at least one of a sound or vibration to indicate distance between the person and the guidance device or the door, wherein the first modulation is detectable by a human (Lenneman [0046]-[0047]: “The alert characteristic may comprise a frequency characteristic, a pulse duration characteristic, a pulse separation characteristic, or the like.” The alert changes with distance. Understood that because the door is mounted on the vehicle, distance to the vehicle necessarily indicates distance to the door. The Examiner notes that Lenneman is relied upon to teach use of sound to indicate distance, and not the structure of a doorway. Rather, Kilim is relied upon to teach the doorway structure.).
Regarding claim 26, the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman further teaches the method according to Claim 25, wherein the first modulation is based on a variation of at least one of a sound pitch, a sound volume, a vibration intensity, a pulse modulation of sound, or a pulse modulation of vibration (Lenneman [0046]-[0047]: “The alert characteristic may comprise a frequency characteristic, a pulse duration characteristic, a pulse separation characteristic, or the like.”).
Regarding claim 27, the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman teaches the method according to Claim 24.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the non-visual guidance comprises a modulation of at least one of a sound or vibration to indicate orientation of the person in relation to the guidance device or the door, wherein the modulation is detectable by a human.
However, Lenneman further teaches wherein the non-visual guidance comprises a modulation of at least one of a sound or vibration to indicate orientation of the person in relation to the guidance device or the door, wherein the modulation is detectable by a human (Lenneman [0045]: “In some implementations, if the passenger is determined to be traveling away from the vehicle 102, the alert may comprise an audible directional command.” In other contexts, Lenneman teaches the alert has an alert characteristic, which may comprise modulation of a sound, see [0046]. APOSITA would have thus understood that the directional alert generated would have also had an alert characteristic.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of guiding a visually impaired person based on relative position and distance to a door disclosed in the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman with the method of detecting and generating directional alerts based on orientation of the visually impaired person further taught in Lenneman because it would have improved the guidance information provided by helping the person to face the right way, making it easier to approach the door.
Regarding claim 29, the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman teaches the method according to Claim 25.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the non-visual guidance comprises a second modulation of at least one of a sound or vibration to indicate orientation of the person in relation to the guidance device or the door, wherein the second modulation is detectable by a human.
However, Lenneman further teaches wherein the non-visual guidance comprises a second modulation of at least one of a sound or vibration to indicate orientation of the person in relation to the guidance device or the door, wherein the second modulation is detectable by a human (Lenneman [0045]: “In some implementations, if the passenger is determined to be traveling away from the vehicle 102, the alert may comprise an audible directional command.” In other contexts, Lenneman teaches the alert has an alert characteristic, which may comprise modulation of a sound, see [0046]. APOSITA would have thus understood that the directional alert generated would have also had an alert characteristic. The Examiner notes that even if this weren’t the case, the generation and emission of a sound is by definition a modulation of that sound.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of guiding a visually impaired person based on relative position and distance to a door disclosed in the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman with the method of detecting and generating directional alerts based on orientation of the visually impaired person further taught in Lenneman because it would have improved the guidance information provided by helping the person to face the right way, making it easier to approach the door.
Claim 35 is rejected over similar reasons to the method of claim 22 as applied to a guidance device (FIG. 1: System 100.).
Claim 36 is rejected over similar reasons to the method of claim 22 as applied to a non-transitory computer readable medium executing the method steps on a guidance device ([0011]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240050304 A1 to Kilim, Moshe et al. (hereinafter “Kilim”) in view of US 20190232868 A1 to Lenneman, Joseph et al. (hereinafter “Lenneman”), further in view of JP 2016063305 A to Kuwabara, Takeshi et al. (hereinafter “Kuwabara”).
Regarding claim 23, the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman further teaches the method according to Claim 22.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the determining that the person is near the door comprises detecting, in an image captured by the camera, a person with a white cane.
However, Kuwabara teaches wherein the determining that the person is near the door comprises detecting, in an image captured by the camera, a person with a white cane (Kuwabara [0017]: “Specifically, the visually impaired person guidance apparatus according to the first embodiment of the present invention captures an image including the white cane 15, for example, a camera 17 as an image capturing unit that captures an image, and the camera 17 captures the image.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of locating and guiding a visually impaired person person through a door taught by the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman with the method of using a camera to detect a person holding a white cane in front of the door taught in Kuwabara. Doing so would have improved the system’s ability to properly identify the visually impaired person in front of the door.
Claims 28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the respective combinations of Kilim and Lenneman made above, further in view of Microsoft Soundscape- A New Navigation App for the Blind and Visually Impaired- Tutorial and Review posted to the YouTube Channel Unsightly Opinions (hereinafter “Unsightly Opinions”).
Regarding claim 28, the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman teaches the method according to Claim 27.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the modulation is based on a variation of at least one of a sound pitch, a sound volume, a vibration intensity, a pulse modulation of sound, or a pulse modulation of vibration.
However, Unsightly Opinions teaches wherein the modulation is based on a variation of at least one of a sound pitch, a sound volume, a vibration intensity, a pulse modulation of sound, or a pulse modulation of vibration (Unsightly Opinions [08:40]: The video and voice over show that when the user (here the mobile device) is facing the target destination (the school), the pitch of the sound representing the user’s orientation relative to the target destination increases. APOSITA would have understood that in this combination, the destination would have been the door of Kilim, and the user’s orientation would have been measured by the module of Lenneman.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of issuing direction alerts to a visually impaired person to aid their approach to a door taught in the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman with the method of increasing the pitch of a tone when a visually impaired person is nearer to the target location taught in Unsightly Opinions with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an intuitive means of informing the person whether they are facing the correct way.
Regarding claim 30, the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman teaches the method according to Claim 29.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the second modulation is based on a variation of at least one of a sound pitch, a sound volume, a vibration intensity, a pulse modulation of sound, or a pulse modulation of vibration, and wherein the second modulation is different from the first modulation.
However, Unsightly Opinions teaches wherein the modulation is based on a variation of at least one of a sound pitch, a sound volume, a vibration intensity, a pulse modulation of sound, or a pulse modulation of vibration (Unsightly Opinions [08:40]: The video and voice over show that when the user (here the mobile device) is facing the target destination (the school), the pitch of the sound representing the user’s orientation relative to the target destination increases. APOSITA would have understood that in this combination, the destination would have been the door of Kilim, and the user’s orientation would have been measured by the module of Lenneman. Further, APOSITA would have recognized that Lenneman teaches the option of using a pulse duration modulation of sound to represent distance (first signal), which is different from pitch modulation (second signal).)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of issuing direction alerts to a visually impaired person to aid their approach to a door taught in the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman with the method of increasing the pitch of a tone when a visually impaired person is facing the target location taught in Unsightly Opinions with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an intuitive means of informing the person whether they are facing the correct way.
Regarding claim 31, the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman teaches the method according to Claim 27.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the providing non-visual guidance comprises providing a peak modulation for the modulation when the person is oriented toward the guidance device or the door.
However, Unsightly Opinions teaches wherein the providing non-visual guidance comprises providing a peak modulation for the modulation when the person is oriented toward the guidance device or the door (Unsightly opinions [08:40-9:35]: Highest pitch taken as the peak modulation. APOSITA would have understood in the above combination that Kilim and Lenneman are relied on in their roles to teach locating and determining the position and orientation of the user using external cameras and providing audible guidance to the user while Unsightly Opinions teaches how the audible guidance with respect to orientation may be provided intuitively to the user. Thus, APOSITA would have recognized that the beacon/destination of Unsightly Opinions would have been the door of Kilim.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of issuing direction alerts to a visually impaired person to aid their approach to a door taught in the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman with the method of increasing the pitch of a tone to a peak modulation when a visually impaired person is facing the target location taught in Unsightly Opinions with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided an intuitive means of informing the person whether they are facing the correct way.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kilim and Lenneman made above, further in view of US 20220074760 A1 to Yoon, Jaemin et al. (hereinafter “Yoon”).
Regarding claim 32, the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman teaches the method according to Claim 22.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the non-visual guidance includes an indication of a door type of the door.
However, Yoon teaches wherein the non-visual guidance includes an indication of a door type of the door (Yoon [0077], [0084]: “ . . . the guide of the geographic information may be provided using an output mechanism (such as a speaker) of the user terminal.”, “As an example, in the attribute information of the spatial object, . . . information on the width of an opening and the opening/closing type of the door (for example, a rotating door and an opening/closing direction) may be provided with respect to information about an entrance door;”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of providing visual guidance through a door taught by the above combination of Kilim and Lenneman with the method of providing audible information regarding the type of door to the visually impaired taught in Yoon because doing so would have improved the ease of movement of the visually impaired by providing them with more useful information about how to move around their surroundings.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kilim, Lenneman, and Yoon made above, further in view of US 4458447 A to Heise, Stanley et al. (hereinafter “Heise”).
Regarding claim 33, the above combination of Kilim, Lenneman, and Yoon teaches the method according to Claim 32, wherein the non-visual guidance includes an indication of direction of rotation of the revolving door (Yoon [0084]: “ . . . the guide of the geographic information may be provided using an output mechanism (such as a speaker) of the user terminal.”, “As an example, in the attribute information of the spatial object, . . . information on the width of an opening and the opening/closing type of the door (for example, a rotating door and an opening/closing direction) may be provided with respect to information about an entrance door;”).
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the door type is a revolving door.
However, Heise teaches wherein the door type is a revolving door (Heise Abstract: Heise teaches the structure of a revolving door.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the door guidance system mounted near a door disclosed in the above combination of Kilim, Lenneman, and Yoon with the revolving door taught in Heise with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “entrain[ed] the internal ambient environment to a great extent, thus economizing on energy costs by preventing escape of the internal ambient environment” as taught in Heise 1:39-44.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the above combination of Kilim, Lenneman, and Yoon made above, further in view of Sliding Vs. Swing Door – How to Decide a Perfect Door for Interior to Glass Genius. (hereinafter “Glass Genius”) and Descriptive directions and information for blind or partially sighted visitors to arts venues to VocalEyes (hereinafter “VocalEyes”)
Regarding claim 34, the above combination of Kilim, Lenneman, and Yoon teaches the method according to Claim 32.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the door type is a sliding door or a swing door.
However, Glass Genius teaches wherein the door type is a sliding door or a swing door (Glass Genius §Swing doors: Glass Genius teaches that the structure of a swing door was known in the art at the time of filing.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of guiding a user to a door taught in the above combination of Kilim, Lenneman, and Yoon with the swing door further taught in Glass Genius because it would have provided a simple, “user friendly” door type that is easy to install and fix as taught in the Pros section of Glass Genius.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the non-visual guidance includes an indication of direction of opening.
However, VocalEyes teaches wherein the non-visual guidance includes an indication of direction of opening (VocalEyes Summary, 2. Arrival: “This guide by audio-description specialists VocalEyes outlines the key steps to create effective descriptive directions.”, “Include information about steps, ramps to the door, and door type (automatic, revolving, push or pull to open), weight (i.e. if heavy) and material (glass, wood, etc.).”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of providing audio guidance for a person to pass through a door disclosed in the above combination of Kilim, Lenneman, Yoon, and Glass Genius with the step of including audio information about if the door is push or pull to open taught in VocalEyes because it would have improved visually impaired people’s ability to quickly and safely open the door by providing useful information, improving their mobility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cioffi, Joseph et al.. US 20150330787 A1. Systems, Methods And Software For Redirecting Blind Travelers Using Dynamic Wayfinding Orientation And Wayfinding Data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights