DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 19/027,320. Claims 1-8 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Application 19/027,320 filed 01/17/2025 is a continuation of application 16/975,243, filed 08/24/2020. Application 16/975,243 is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2019/007553, International Filing Date: 02/27/2019, and claims foreign priority to 2018-032748, filed 02/27/2018.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 01/17/2025, 02/13/2025, 02/19/2025, 05/05/2025, and 05/13/2025 have been acknowledged. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of Patent No. US 12,380,376 B2 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is obvious in view of claim 1 in the listed patent. Claim 1 of the instant application recites “An assistance system comprising circuitry configured to: automatically determine a location of an attention-requiring person via detection by a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person; determine, via the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, a movement of the attention-requiring person; predict, via an area determining unit comprising a processor, a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on the location and a movement direction of the attention-requiring person as determined by the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, and based on a movement history of the attention-requiring person, the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit; determine, via the area determining unit, an affected area based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person, the determining the affected area including (i) determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station and (ii) determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention-requiring person is moving toward the platform door; automatically, via a notification unit, output an attention request to an output unit that is present in the affected area; and wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving.” Claim 1 of the ‘376 patent recites “An assistance system comprising circuitry configured to: automatically determine a location of an attention-requiring person via detection by a monitoring camera installed in a facility and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person; determine, via the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, a movement of the attention-requiring person; predict, via an area determining unit comprising a processor, a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on the location and a movement direction of the attention-requiring person as determined by the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, and based on a movement history of the attention-requiring person, the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit; determine, via the area determining unit, an affected area based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person; automatically, via a notification unit, output via the mobile terminal an attention request to an output unit comprising a display that is present in the affected area; and automatically identify, via the notification unit, a motorized automobile that will intersect the affected area, wherein the affected area includes a region extending from the location of the attention-requiring person and, the output unit being in a fixed location near the affected area and comprising a traffic signal, and the display of the traffic signal changes to stop the motorized automobile in response to the request to prevent intersection and/or overlap of a flow line of the motorized automobile with the affected area.” The claims are directed to the same inventive concept, namely a predictive assistance system that determines a movement path of an attention-requiring person, determines an affected area based on that predicted path, and outputs an attention request to an output unit located in the affected area. The differences between the claims amount to: the specific environment (facility versus station), the specific scenario used to define the affected area (automobile intersection versus movement toward a platform door), and the type of output unit (traffic signal versus mobile terminal of a nearby person). These differences constitute obvious variation of the same underlying invention. Modifying the output unit from a fixed traffic signal controlling a motorized automobile to a mobile terminal of a person located in the affected area would have been an obvious design choice, as both serve the same purpose of issuing a attention request to assist an attention-requiring person. Similarly, adapting the system for use in a station environment involving a platform door rather than an automobile intersection represents an obvious application of the same predictive and notification framework to a different but analogous safety context. Accordingly, claim 1 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 1 of the ‘376 patent and is therefore rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
Claims of instant application (as filed on 01/17/2025)
Claims of U.S. Pat. 12,380,376 B2
(issued on 08/05/2025)
1
1
4
4
5
5
8
6
The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of U.S. Patent 12,380,376 B2 that are patentably indistinct, though not identical. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of claim elements and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
9. Claims 1/8 recite “wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving.” The phrase “a person proximate to the platform door” is ambiguous because “proximate” is a relative term. There is no basis or standard provided for determining when a person is considered “proximate to the platform door”. The claim does not define a particular distance from the platform does, a measurable spatial threshold, or any other objective standard for determining proximity, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
10. Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit the §112(b) deficiencies of claim 1. Claims 6-8 depend from claim 5 and therefore inherit the §112(b) deficiencies of claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
11. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
12. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
13. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-4) and method (claims 5-8) are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine and process, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-8 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106. Specifically, the claim recites limitations falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping by reciting steps for managing personal behavior or interactions or following rules or instructions for assisting an attention-requiring person. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
automatically determine a location of an attention-requiring person via detection by a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person (The “determine” step describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) and is part of the abstract idea falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”);
determine, via the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, a movement of the attention-requiring person (This step is organizing human activity by managing personal behavior by following rules, or instructions, i.e., by collecting information about the movement of the attention-requiring person to be assisted by another person.);
predict, via an area determining unit comprising a processor, a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on the location and a movement direction of the attention-requiring person as determined by the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, and based on a movement history of the attention-requiring person, the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit (This step is organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided for the “determining” steps above.);
determine, via the area determining unit, an affected area based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person, the determining the affected area including (i) determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station and (ii) determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention-requiring person is moving toward the platform door (The “determine” step describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) and is part of the abstract idea falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”);
automatically, via a notification unit, output an attention request to an output unit that is present in the affected area; and wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving (This step is organizing human activity by managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions by following rules, or instructions, i.e., by outputting information about the need for assistance of the attention-requiring person to another person. This step would also be deemed insignificant extra-solution activity even if interpreted as being displayed on a display device, which is not a practical application or significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(g).).
Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of managing personal relationships/interactions between people via rules or instructions that simply determine a location of an attention-requiring person and output an attention request to a user. The Specification discloses that the invention relates to “an assistance system and an assistance method for a user that requires attention or assistance” (Specification at paragraph 0001). The Specification supports the Examiner’s finding that the claims recite the judicial exception of a certain method of organizing human activities because the Specification discloses addressing the relationships between an attention-requiring person and another person, which necessarily relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Claim 1 recites a certain method of organizing human activity in the form of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Independent claim 5 recites similar limitations as the above-noted limitations recited in claim 1 and is therefore found to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: circuitry, a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person, an area determining unit comprising a processor, an information storage unit, a notification unit, an output unit that is present in the affected area; and wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving (claim 1); an assistance system, a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person, an area determining unit comprising a processor, an information storage unit, an output unit that is present in the affected area; and wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving (claim 5). The additional elements have been fully considered, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements merely describe the use of generic computing elements or computer instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer or generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). The Specification describes the circuitry as “including 1) one or more processors that run on a computer program (software), 2) one or more dedicated hardware circuits such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC) that execute at least part of various processes, or 3) a combination thereof. The processor includes a CPU and memories such as a RAM and a ROM. The memories store program codes or commands configured to cause the CPU to execute processes. The memories, or computer-readable media, include any type of media that is accessible by general-purpose computers and dedicated computers.” [paragraph 0014]. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Similarly, employing an output unit including a mobile terminal, the output unit that is present in the affected area, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this element amounts to insignificant extra-solution data outputting activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Similarly, storing the movement history of the attention-requiring person in an information storage unit does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this element amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: circuitry, a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person, an area determining unit comprising a processor, an information storage unit, a notification unit, an output unit that is present in the affected area; and wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving (claim 1); an assistance system, a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person, an area determining unit comprising a processor, an information storage unit, an output unit that is present in the affected area; and wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving (claim 5). Similarly, the limitations “the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit,” and “automatically, via a notification unit, output an attention request to an output unit that is present in the affected area; and wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving” describe insignificant extra-solution activities, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g), is not enough to add significantly more since it is well-understood and conventional activity, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. The additional elements are directed to generic computing elements and instructions/software that serve to tie the abstract to a particular technological environment, similar to simply adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim.
In addition, the Specification (paragraphs [0011] and [0014]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
With respect to reliance on “global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person” to determine a location of a person, this activity is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Maxwell et al., US 2015/0189071 (paragraph 0003: “Conventional methods and devices that help visually-impaired and blind people to use their other senses to interact with the world around them are known in the art. Some of these methods and devices help visually-impaired and blind people to navigate from place to place. For example, talking global positioning system (GPS) devices utilize GPS technology to identify the location of a person, and audibly announce details regarding the location.”).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and have been found to either recite additional details that are part of the abstract idea itself (when analyzed under Step 2A Prong One) along with, at most, additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. In particular, dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 further narrow the abstract idea recited in independent claims 1 and 5 by reciting additional details or steps that set forth activities for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which therefore fall under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” group. Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 recite additional elements of
a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving (claims 2, 6), a mobile terminal of a person approaching the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving (claims 3, 7), wherein the assistance system is connected to the monitoring camera and the output unit via a network (claim 4), wherein the output unit is further identified by a communication device located in the station, the communication device communicating with the output unit via a peer-to-peer network (claim 8). However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted above in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
17. 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.
18. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo, Pub. No.: US 2012/0171988 A1, [hereinafter Matsuo], in view of Bangera et al., Pub. No.: US 2011/0276407 A1, [hereinafter Bangera], in view of Hayashi et al., Pub. No.: US 2009/0009338 A1, [hereinafter Hayashi], in further view of Kayhani et al., Pub. No.: US 2019/0043340 A1, [hereinafter Kayhani].
As per claim 1, Matsuo teaches an assistance system comprising circuitry (paragraph 0003, “a computerized system for responding to electronic messages that request assistance includes a processor and a computer readable memory”; paragraph 0071, discussing that the computer system is shown comprising hardware elements that may be electrically coupled via a bus…; paragraph 0073) configured to:
automatically determine a location of an attention-requiring person via detection by a monitoring camera installed in a station and/or a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person (paragraph 0006, discussing that automatically identifying one or more potential assisting persons who are in position to render assistance to the first person includes identifying the potential assisting persons based at least in part on information from a global positioning system receiver or an assisted global positioning system. The electronic message may include information about the location of the first person; paragraph 0044, discussing that a mobile telephone that includes a GPS receiver may transmit its location (the location of client 405) [i.e., This shows that a location of an attention-requiring person is determined via detection by a global positioning system of a mobile terminal carried by the attention-requiring person]; paragraph 0056, discussing that a notification message may include a digital map, showing the location of client 405 [i.e., the location of an attention-requiring person], to assist potential assisting persons in locating client 405; paragraph 0043, discussing that in an example scenario client 405 may require assistance [i.e., client 405 requiring assistance is considered to be an attention-requiring person]; paragraph 0046, “the location of client 405 may be determined”; paragraph 0038;
determine, via the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, a movement of the attention-requiring person (paragraph 0056, discussing that a notification message may include a digital map, showing the location of client 405 [i.e., attention-requiring person], to assist potential assisting persons in locating client 405. This location technique may be especially useful if the communication device used by client 405 to call private response center 204 includes a GPS receiver, and can supply GPS coordinates to private response center 204. Such a map could be updated dynamically, for example as either the recipient of the message or client 405 moves, the map could be updated [i.e., This shows that a movement of the attention-requiring person is determined via the global positioning system]; paragraph 0058, discussing that the client may have previously opted into a tracking service, wherein private response center periodically receives location fixes from the client's telephone or other device; paragraph 0068);
determine, via the area determining unit, an affected area (paragraph 0006, discussing that automatically identifying one or more potential assisting persons who are in position to render assistance to the first person includes identifying the potential assisting persons based in part on their proximity to the first person; paragraph 0040, discussing that potential assisting persons 406a and 406b may be identified based in part on their proximity to client 405, since persons near client 405 may best be in position to render assistance; paragraph 0043, discussing that private response center then identifies potential assisting persons in the area (that is, identifies the mobile devices of other persons in the area) such as persons 406a and 406b, and transmits an electronic message to those persons [i.e., the area in the vicinity of client 405 is considered to be the affected area]; paragraph 0060, discussing that various capabilities of the wireless devices carried by client 405 and potential assisting persons in the area may be exploited to provide additional information to the potential assisting persons about the location of client 405; paragraphs 0044, 0046, 0050, 0066); and
automatically, via a notification unit, output an attention request to an output unit that is present in the affected area (paragraph 0039, “a message is transmitted to one or more of the identified persons, indicating that the client has requested assistance”; paragraph 0042, discussing that one or more potential assisting persons are identified who may be in position to render assistance. In step 503, a message is transmitted to one or more of the identified persons, indicating that the client has requested assistance [i.e., outputting an attention request]; paragraph 0043, discussing that private response center then identifies potential assisting persons in the area (that is, identifies the mobile devices of other persons in the area) such as persons 406a and 406b, and transmits an electronic message to those persons. The electronic message may be, for example, a short message service (SMS) or "text" message or another kind of message. Example message 407 is a text message describing the situation and notifying persons 406a and 406b; paragraph 0053, discussing that notification message may include information about client 405. For example, a notification message could include a digital photograph of client 405, to aid potential responders in finding and identifying client 404; paragraph 0068, discussing that an example of a display that may be generated on mobile device 410 of potential assisting person 406a is shown in FIG. 8; paragraph 0056).
Matsuo does not explicitly teach predict, via an area determining unit comprising a processor, a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on the location and a movement direction of the attention-requiring person as determined by the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, and based on a movement history of the attention-requiring person, the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit;
determine, via the area determining unit, an affected area based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person, the determining the affected area including (i) determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station and (ii) determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention-requiring person is moving toward the platform door; and wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving.
Bangera in the analogous art of tracking systems teaches:
predict, via an area determining unit comprising a processor, a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on the location and a movement direction of the attention-requiring person as determined by the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system (paragraph 0009, discussing a system for tracking a path of a person; paragraph 0039, discussing that the signal analyzer can be configured to determine movement and/or speed of movement of a person through the region. The signal analyzer 124 can be configured to infer the orientation of a person such as the direction a person is facing relative to the region; paragraph 0042, discussing that the signal analyzer 124 can determine movement, a direction of movement, and/or a rate of movement of one or more persons in the region; paragraph 0081, discussing a system for tracking the motion of a person including previously visited region(s), a currently visited region, and possible future regions…The computing resource can also formulate one or more predicted paths from the current path [i.e., This shows that a flow line of the attention-requiring person is predicted based on the location and the movement direction of the attention-requiring person].The predicted path can include at least one arrival time of the at least one person at a future region. For example, if a previous path was found to correspond to a direct transit from a first region to a second region, then the computing resource can predict that the person will similarly take a direct path to the predicted future region; paragraph 0083, discussing that the computing resource can predict a plurality possible future regions that will be visited by the at least one person, and receive MIR signals or data from the plurality of possible future regions to determine an actually visited one of the possible future regions. The computing resource can then predict another future path responsive to the actually visited region. The actually taken path can be combined with other actual paths in the computer-readable media. The process can be repeated as the person transits an area corresponding to a plurality of regions; paragraph 0085, discussing that the computing resource can be further configured to generate an occupancy record for the person, the occupancy record including a position of the person, a speed of the person, a velocity of the person, a direction of motion of the person, an orientation of the person, a time associated with presence of the person, a time of arrival of the person to a region, a time of departure of the person from the region, and/or the path of the person through the plurality of regions; paragraphs 0055, 0064, 0074, 0088)
determine, via the area determining unit, an affected area based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person (paragraph 0081, discussing a system for tracking the motion of a person including previously visited region(s), a currently visited region, and possible future regions…The computing resource can also formulate one or more predicted paths from the current path...The predicted path can include at least one arrival time of the at least one person at a future region. For example, if a previous path was found to correspond to a direct transit from a first region to a second region, then the computing resource can predict that the person will similarly take a direct path to the predicted future region [i.e., This shows that an affected area is determined based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person]; paragraph 0082, discussing that the computing resource can determine a media parameter that includes a media output start time corresponding to the predicted time of arrival of the at least one person to a vicinity of the media output apparatus. Similarly, the computing resource can also determine one or more other media parameters with which to operate the media output apparatus to output media to the predicted region; paragraph 0110, discussing inferring or determining a path of the person; paragraph 0099).
Matsuo is directed towards systems and methods for notifying an extended group of persons of an assistance request. Bangera is directed towards a system for measuring the motion of a person. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards person location detection systems and methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matsuo with Bangera because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for determining a location of a person, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (location detection systems), and because modifying Matsuo to include Bangera’s features for predicting a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on the location and a movement direction of the attention-requiring person as determined by the monitoring camera and/or the global positioning system, and determining an affected area based on the predicted flow line of the attention-requiring person, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a relatively high probability of an accurate determination and/or differentiation between persons (Bangera at paragraph 0074); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
While Bangera teaches predict, via an area determining unit comprising a processor, a flow line of the attention-requiring person the Matsuo-Bangera combination does not explicitly teach that the prediction is based on a movement history of the attention-requiring person, the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit; the determining the affected area including (i) determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station and (ii) determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention-requiring person is moving toward the platform door; wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving. Hayashi in the analogous art of movement managing systems teaches:
predict, via an area determining unit comprising a processor, a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on a movement history of the attention-requiring person, the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit (paragraph 0020, discussing that according to the movement managing system, the data managing server stores a table representing position information corresponding to the personal information, receives the personal information and the device ID from the personal information input device, refers to the table representing the position information to convert the received personal information to information representing the movement destination of the person to be managed, identifies the current position of the person from the device ID, and estimates the movement path of the person from the movement destination and the current position; paragraph 0021, discussing that the data managing server receives personal information on the person to be managed from the personal information input device out of the estimated movement path, and transmits information that the person is moving out of the estimated movement path to the information acquiring device; paragraph 0036, discussing that the person to be managed is a person receiving free-of-charge/discount application for an elderly person using a means of transportation, the personal information input device is installed at the boarding gate or the ticket gate of the means of transportation and when personal information on the person to be managed is inputted, transmits the inputted personal information to the data managing server, and the data managing server stores the personal information…;paragraph 0041, discussing that the movement managing system has one or more personal information input devices installed on the movement path of a person to be managed and inputting personal information on the person to be managed, a data managing server for creating the movement history of the person to be managed on the basis of personal information inputted from the personal information input device, an information acquiring device for acquiring the movement history of the person to be managed from the data managing server, and a network; paragraph 0050, discussing that after identifying the person, the data managing server writes time and position information received from the personal information input device to the movement history of the identified person of the movement histories of one or more persons stored in itself; paragraph 0083, discussing that transmitting alarm message information that the person to be managed is moving out of the movement path to the information acquiring device; paragraph 0084, discussing that the person concerned with the person to be managed can easily grasp unexpected movement of the person to be managed and can prevent the person to be managed from being involved in an accident; paragraph 0078, 0265, 0257).
The Matsuo-Bangera combination is directed towards systems and methods for determining the location of persons. Hayashi is directed towards a system and method for elderly assistance systems. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards assistance systems and methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Matsuo-Bangera combination with Hayashi because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for providing assistance to a person that requires assistance, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (location detection systems and assistance systems), and because modifying the Matsuo-Bangera combination to include Hayashi’s feature for predicting a flow line of the attention-requiring person based on a movement history of the attention-requiring person, the movement history of the attention-requiring person being stored in an information storage unit, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a movement managing system for grasping the movement of a remote person and acquiring the information with improved reliability (Hayashi at paragraph 0010); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi combination does not explicitly teach the determining the affected area including (i) determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station and (ii) determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention-requiring person is moving toward the platform door; and wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving. However, Kayhani in the analogous art of support systems teaches these concepts. Kayhani teaches
the determining the affected area including (i) determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station (paragraph 0004, discussing a mobile communications device for providing proximity-based assistance; paragraph 0019, discussing that the destination station may be informed that the disabled passenger [i.e., attention-requiring person] is arriving at their station now; paragraph 0032, discussing that upon broadcasting the request, the mobile device may transmit a message to one or more transit system devices (such as station computers, portable accessibility staff devices, and the like) that indicates that a user has requested assistance. The message may include an identifier of the user, a location of the user, a type of disability, and/or other information. This message keeps the transit system informed of the user's need for assistance. The transit system devices may be at the boarding station and/or the destination station. For example, if the messages go to someone at the boarding station prior to the transit vehicle departing, a staff member may assist the user. If the transit vehicle has departed or is about to depart, the message may go to a transit system device at the destination station of the user, which allows the staff there to prepare to assist the user if assistance has not been provided by a helper; paragraph 0039, discussing that the transit vehicle may adjust signage to alert helpers that a disabled passenger needs assistance and to check their mobile applications, adjust the signage to inform helpers where the disabled passenger is, and/or otherwise adjust a user interface of one or more devices of the transit vehicle to assist the disabled passenger. This allows the staff at the destination station to prepare for and anticipate helping the disabled passenger upon arrival…; paragraph 0040, discussing that the staff of the vehicle, origination transit station, and/or destination transit station may be notified that the disabled passenger is traveling on a particular transit vehicle to a specific location This information may be provided to the staff of the transit station via the mobile application; paragraph 0042) and (ii) determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention-requiring person is moving toward the platform door (paragraph 0034, discussing that upon broadcasting the request, the mobile device may communicate with a transit vehicle on which the mobile device is or will be riding on. For example, the mobile device may send a signal to the vehicle that informs the vehicle that the user needs assistance. In some embodiments, this message may cause the vehicle to make changes to user interfaces of signage and/or other devices based on the user's needs. For example, the vehicle may change signage to help a helper navigate his way toward the user; paragraph 0036, discussing a system for providing proximity-based assistance. The system includes a disabled passenger, a helper passenger, a transit vehicle, and a transit station…The disabled passenger may register as such by providing personal details and disability information on a mobile application executed on the passenger's mobile device…In some embodiments, the disabled passenger may include details as to certain tasks the disabled passenger may need help with (finding a seat, sitting down, standing up, exiting/boarding a vehicle, etc.; paragraph 0038, discussing that the disabled passenger may arrive at a transit station and/or transit vehicle, open up their mobile application, and interact with the mobile device to broadcast an assistance request. The request may include a type of disability of the disabled passenger and/or specific tasks the disabled passenger needs assistance with…The request may be broadcast to the transit vehicle and/or helpers that are in a predetermined proximity of the disabled passenger. In some embodiments, the proximity may be based on a distance around the disabled passenger set to be convenient for helpers to arrive. In other embodiments, the proximity may be determined based on a signal range of the antenna broadcasting the request signal. In some embodiments, all helpers within the proximity will be able to see the request…A helper arrives at the transit station and activates his mobile application. In some embodiments, the mobile device may run in the background of his helper device. The helper may get a notification when the disabled passenger starts broadcasting the request…The helper may accept the task by moving closer to the disabled passenger until the two parties are within a predetermined threshold distance away from each other. The threshold distance may be shorter than the proximity of the request, and is typically a very short distance away, such as 1 foot, 3 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet, and the like; paragraph 0056, discussing that location data from the helper device (provided by the mobile application) and location data from the mobile device (such as from the indication) may be compared to determine that the devices are within a close proximity to one another…Then one or both of the devices may alert the transit system of their proximity; paragraph 0041); and
wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving (paragraph 0005, discussing that a request for assistance may be broadcast to a plurality of helper devices that are within a predetermined proximity of the user. Each of the portion of the plurality of helper devices that are within a predetermined proximity of the user may be associated with a corresponding user that is registered to assist with the particular type of assistance needed. The instructions may also cause the at least one processor to determine that the corresponding user has moved within a threshold distance of the user. The threshold distance may be less that the predetermined proximity; paragraph 0018, discussing that the premise is that the disabled passenger can ask for help by broadcasting a message. One or more nearby devices (e.g., mobile devices of potential helpers) executing the application may receive the message…; paragraph 0038, discussing that the disabled passenger may arrive at a transit station and/or transit vehicle, open up their mobile application, and interact with the mobile device to broadcast an assistance request. The request may include a type of disability of the disabled passenger and/or specific tasks the disabled passenger needs assistance with…The request may be broadcast to helpers that are in a predetermined proximity of the disabled passenger; paragraph 0052, discussing that as the helper approaches a transit station, the passenger may execute the mobile application. When a nearby disabled user broadcasts a request for assistance, the helper device may detect this request and notify the helper. For example, the helper device may get a push notification, SMS, and/or other electronic notification that causes the helper device to output an audio, visual, and/or haptic alert that alerts the helper that a passenger needs assistance...The request may include a type of the disability(ies), a task(s) the passenger needs assistance with, a location of the passenger, an identifier of the passenger, and/or other information that may be useful in matching the passenger with the qualified helper).
The Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi combination describes features related to determining the location of persons and providing assistance. Kayhani is directed towards a system for providing proximity-based assistance. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed toward location monitoring systems and methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi combination with Kayhani because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for providing assistance to a person that requires assistance, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (location detection systems), and because modifying the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi combination to include Kayhani’s features for including determining whether the attention-requiring person is moving toward a platform door installed in a platform in the station, determining that the affected area is a region extending to the platform door from the location of the attention-requiring person in response to determining that the attention-requiring person is moving toward the platform door, and wherein the output unit includes a mobile terminal of a person proximate to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of increasing the number of identified persons available to help people with disabilities (Kayhani at paragraph 0003), or in the pursuit of helping the disabled and providing true proximity-based peer to peer assistance, which may increase participation and make the user experience for disabled passengers much better (Kayhani at paragraph 0024); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination teaches the assistance system according to claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi combination, Kayhani in the analogous art of proximity-based assistance systems teaches wherein the output unit further includes a mobile terminal of a person approaching the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving (paragraph 0005, discussing that a request for assistance may be broadcast to a plurality of helper devices that are within a predetermined proximity of the user. Each of the portion of the plurality of helper devices that are within a predetermined proximity of the user may be associated with a corresponding user that is registered to assist with the particular type of assistance needed. The instructions may also cause the at least one processor to determine that the corresponding user has moved within a threshold distance of the user. The threshold distance may be less that the predetermined proximity; paragraph 0018, discussing that the premise is that the disabled passenger can ask for help by broadcasting a message. One or more nearby devices (e.g., mobile devices of potential helpers) executing the application may receive the message…; paragraph 0038, discussing that the disabled passenger may arrive at a transit station and/or transit vehicle, open up their mobile application, and interact with the mobile device to broadcast an assistance request. The request may include a type of disability of the disabled passenger and/or specific tasks the disabled passenger needs assistance with…The request may be broadcast to helpers that are in a predetermined proximity of the disabled passenger; paragraph 0052, discussing that as the helper approaches a transit station, the passenger may execute the mobile application. When a nearby disabled user broadcasts a request for assistance, the helper device may detect this request and notify the helper. For example, the helper device may get a push notification, SMS, and/or other electronic notification that causes the helper device to output an audio, visual, and/or haptic alert that alerts the helper that a passenger needs assistance...The request may include a type of the disability(ies), a task(s) the passenger needs assistance with, a location of the passenger, an identifier of the passenger, and/or other information that may be useful in matching the passenger with the qualified helper).
The Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi combination describes features related to determining the location of persons and providing assistance. Kayhani is directed towards a system for providing proximity-based assistance. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed toward location monitoring systems and methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi combination with Kayhani because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for providing assistance to a person that requires assistance, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (location detection systems), and because modifying the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi combination to include Kayhani’s feature for including wherein the output unit further includes a mobile terminal of a person approaching the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of increasing the number of identified persons available to help people with disabilities (Kayhani at paragraph 0003), or in the pursuit of helping the disabled and providing true proximity-based peer to peer assistance, which may increase participation and make the user experience for disabled passengers much better (Kayhani at paragraph 0024); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 5 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 5, the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination teaches a method for assisting cooperation for a user that requires attention using an assistance system (Matsuo, paragraph 0003, discussing a computerized system for responding to electronic messages that request assistance includes a processor and a computer readable memory. The computer readable memory holds processor instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computerized system to receive a communication from a first person, the communication including a request for assistance, identify one or more potential assisting persons who are in position to render assistance to the first person; paragraph 0006, discussing a method for operating a service center includes receiving an electronic communication from a first person, the electronic communication including a request for assistance, and automatically identifying one or more potential assisting persons who are in position to render assistance to the first person. The method further includes transmitting, over a communications network, an electronic notification message to at least one of the one or more potential assisting persons).
Claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 3, as discussed above.
19. Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Bangera, in view of Hayashi, in view of Kayhani, in further view of Fullalove et al., Pub. No.: US 2012/0120234 A1, [hereinafter Fullalove].
As per claim 2, the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination teaches the assistance system according to claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination, Fullalove in the analogous art of passenger assistance systems teaches wherein the output unit further includes a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving (paragraph 0007, discussing a platform screen door system comprising a fixed panel and a door leaf, drive means adapted to slidingly move the door leaf from a door open position to a door closed position, and a microprocessor adapted to control the movement of the door, wherein the fixed panel is provided with a media panel, which media panel is adapted to display information, wherein the information displayed is controllable by a further microprocessor; paragraph 0015, discussing that the door control unit can transmit a signal to the media panel adjacent to the door controlled by the media panel so that this can display information from the door system; paragraph 0017, discussing that It would also be possible to transmit other information such as where to board a train so that the passenger was at the point on the train closest to the exit at their desired station or at popular stations, which again would speed up de-training. As the doors are individually addressable each door could display a different message; paragraphs 0021, 0022).
The Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination describes features related to determining the location of persons and providing assistance. Fullalove is directed towards passenger assistance systems. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards assistance systems and methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination with Fullalove because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for providing assistance to a person that requires assistance, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (location detection systems and assistance systems), and because modifying the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination to include Fullalove’s feature for including wherein the output unit further includes a display arranged on a platform fence adjacent to the platform door toward which the attention-requiring person is moving, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing an effective solution to the problem of maximizing passenger boarding speed (Fullalove at paragraph 003); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 2, as discussed above.
20. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Bangera, in view of Hayashi, in view of Kayhani, in further view of Benoit et al., Pub. No.: US 2015/0269835 A1, [hereinafter Benoit].
As per claim 4, the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination teaches the assistance system according to claim 1. Although not explicitly taught by the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination, Benoit in the analogous art of aid and support systems teaches wherein the assistance system is connected to the monitoring camera and the output unit via a network (paragraph 0023, discussing that the security system and method may include an electronic device ("device") operating in a network or interconnected environment and including software or logic instructions ("security program") residing thereon and being configured to carry out or perform at least a portion of the disclosed inventive concepts; paragraph 0053, discussing that the communications component may include logic, hardware, and the like, configured to permit the electronic device to communicate on a variety of communications mediums. Exemplary communications mediums may include, but are not limited to, a cellular telephone network (voice and/or data), a wireless network (e.g., WiFi), a wired network, the Internet, an optical network, and so forth; paragraph 0063, discussing that the primary and secondary devices may be in communication via, for example, Bluetooth, Infra-Red, or other wireless communication medium. In other aspects, the primary and secondary devices may be in communication via one or more interconnected or network environments, e.g., via a wireless network, a wired network, the Internet, and the like; paragraph 0099, discussing that the method comprises transmitting 1415 an alert message to a responding party that includes either the video, audio, image or location data or access to the video, audio, image or location data; paragraphs 0049, 0061, 0067, 0098).
The Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination describes features related to determining the location of persons and providing assistance. Benoit is directed towards a system and method for providing proximity based assistance. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards assistance systems and methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination with Benoit because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for providing assistance to a person that requires assistance, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (location detection systems and assistance systems), and because modifying the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination to include Benoit’s feature for including wherein the assistance system is connected to the monitoring camera and the output unit via a network, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of monitoring other sensors to better determine if an incident is occurring and to provide additional data to individuals offering assistance to users in need (Benoit at paragraph 0074); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
21. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Bangera, in view of Hayashi, in view of Kayhani, in further view of Mehta et al., Pub. No.: US 2017/0251347 A1, [hereinafter Mehta].
As per claim 8, the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination teaches the method according to claim 5. Matsuo further teaches wherein the output unit is further identified (paragraph 0039, “a message is transmitted to one or more of the identified persons, indicating that the client has requested assistance”; paragraph 0042, discussing that one or more potential assisting persons are identified who may be in position to render assistance. In step 503, a message is transmitted to one or more of the identified persons, indicating that the client has requested assistance; paragraph 0043, discussing that private response center then identifies potential assisting persons in the area (that is, identifies the mobile devices of other persons in the area) such as persons 406a and 406b, and transmits an electronic message to those persons. The electronic message may be, for example, a short message service (SMS) or "text" message or another kind of message. Example message 407 is a text message describing the situation and notifying persons 406a and 406b; paragraph 0053, discussing that notification message may include information about client 405. For example, a notification message could include a digital photograph of client 405, to aid potential responders in finding and identifying client 404; paragraph 0068, discussing that an example of a display that may be generated on mobile device 410 of potential assisting person 406a is shown in FIG. 8; paragraph 0056), but it does not explicitly teach wherein the output unit is further identified by a communication device located in the facility, the communication device communicating with the output unit via a peer-to-peer network. Hayashi in the analogous art of movement managing systems teaches:
wherein the output unit is further identified by a communication device located in the facility (paragraph 0033, discussing that the person to be managed is an insured person, the personal information input device is installed in a medical facility, and when personal information on the person to be managed is inputted, transmits the inputted personal information to the data managing server, and the data managing server judges that a person identified by personal information received from the personal information input device is an insured person of an insurance available in the medical facility, and transmits information on the insured person previously stored in itself so as to be matched with the personal information to the information acquiring device installed in the medical facility; paragraph 0035, discussing that the data managing server stores information representing a means of transportation available by the person to be managed, judges whether or not the person identified on the basis of personal information received from the personal information input device can use the means of transportation in which the personal information input device on the transmitting side is installed, and transmits the judged result to the information acquiring device installed in the means of transportation; paragraph 0036, discussing that according to the movement managing system of the present invention, the person to be managed is a person receiving free-of-charge/discount application for an elderly person using a means of transportation, the personal information input device is installed at the boarding gate or the ticket gate of the means of transportation and when personal information on the person to be managed is inputted, transmits the inputted personal information to the data managing server; paragraph 0083, discussing that when the data managing server receives personal information from the personal information input device installed out of the movement path, it may transmit alarm message information that the person to be managed is moving out of the movement path to the information acquiring device by e-mail. The information acquiring device receives the alarm message information and displays the contents of the message on the displayed screen. Upon reception of the alarm message information, the data managing server may give an alarm sound; paragraph 0227).
The Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination describes features related to determining the location of persons and providing assistance. Hayashi is directed towards a system and method for elderly assistance systems. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards assistance systems and methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Matsuo-Bangera combination with Hayashi because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for providing assistance to a person that requires assistance, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (location detection systems and assistance systems), and because modifying the Matsuo-Bangera combination to include Hayashi’s feature for including wherein the output unit is further identified by a communication device located in the facility, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a movement managing system for grasping the movement of a remote person and acquiring the information with improved reliability (Hayashi at paragraph 0010); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination does not explicitly teach the communication device communicating with the output unit via a peer-to-peer network. However, Mehta in the analogous art of assistance systems teaches this concept. Mehta teaches:
the communication device communicating with the output unit via a peer-to-peer network. (paragraph 0005, discussing systems, methods, and devices for allowing user communication devices that are part of a group of user communication devices to autonomously share meta-data about each user and/or user communication device in the group, for example, location information; paragraph 0006, discussing that systems, devices, and methods that allow a person to send a request for assistance; paragraph 0184, discussing that communication devices participating in a web of devices 1190 communicate directly over a peer-to-peer connection using data communication channels without routing the communications over one or more intermediate routing devices…; paragraph 0242, discussing that the responder devices remotely access a communication device directly via a peer to peer connection. In some embodiments, the responder devices 1982 remotely accesses a communication device directly via a peer-to-peer network…).
The Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination is directed towards systems and methods for determining the location of persons. Mehta is directed towards assistance systems. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards location determining systems and methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination with Mehta because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for providing assistance to a person that requires support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (location determining systems and assistance systems), and because modifying the Matsuo-Bangera-Hayashi-Kayhani combination to include Mehta’s feature for including the communication device communicating with the output unit via a peer-to-peer network, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of allowing a third party to provide effective and timely assistance (Mehta at paragraph 0006); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crawford et al., Pub. No.: US 2016/0099895 A1 – describes a system and method for alerting a list of multiple recipients of a user's request for assistance.
Gadepalli et al., Patent No.: US 9,781,247 B1 – describes proximity alert and personalized instructions responsive to a physical distress.
Childress et al., Pub. No.: US 2018/0018718 A1 – describes automated service request systems based on user location.
Marco, Alvaro, et al. "Location-based services for elderly and disabled people." Computer communications 31.6 (2008): 1055-1066 – describes a system is that serves location to innovative services for elderly and disabled people, ranging from alarm and monitoring to support for navigation and leisure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Darlene Garcia-Guerra whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on 571- 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625