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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
1. Claims 2-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2-14 recite “A passenger conveyance system” should be – The passenger conveyance system -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1, 9-10, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by submitted prior art Pahkala et al. (2015/0146896).
As to claim 1, Pahkala teaches a passenger conveyance system comprising a directional speaker system configured to transmit an audio communication into a restricted target area (abstract, Fig. 4, [0014, 0029, 0032, 0036] - implementing in an elevator sound system the improvement according to the invention, at least one loudspeaker to be used in the elevator sound system is replaced with a plate-like electrostatic actuator producing a directed sound field).
As to claim 9, Pahkala teaches the passenger conveyance system of claim 1, wherein the restricted target area is adjacent to an elevator calling system (Figs. 3 and 4 and related texts).
As to claim 10, Pahkala teaches the passenger conveyance system of claim 1, wherein the directional speaker system is arranged to transmit audio communications to two or more restricted target areas simultaneously (Fig. 4 – areas 9, 10, and 11; [0038]).
As to claim 14, Pahkala teaches the passenger conveyance system of claim 1, wherein the passenger conveyance system is an elevator (Figs. 3 and 4; abstract, at least [0002-0011, 0014-0022] and throughout the patent application), an escalator or a moving walkway.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahkala et al. (2015/0146896) in view of Yamamoto (WO 2024116460 A1).
As to claim 2, Pahkala does not explicitly discuss the passenger conveyance system of claim 1, wherein the directional speaker system is an ultrasonic parametric speaker system.
Yamamoto teaches high sound pressure ultrasonic waves, such as ultrasonic transducers for parametric speakers. A parametric speaker equipped with the ultrasonic transducer 100 according to the first embodiment of the present invention, it is possible to reproduce audible sound by modulating the ultrasonic waves emitted from the ultrasonic transducer 100 through modulation drive of the ultrasonic transducer (description-of-embodiments).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto into the teachings of Pahkala for the purpose of delivering highly focused, directional sound by using ultrasonic carrier waves modulated with audio signals and the technology is motivated by the need for precision audio delivery in environments where traditional speakers cause unwanted noise, reduce clarity, or waste energy.
6. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahkala et al. (2015/0146896) in view of Hayakawa et al. (2010/0272271).
As to claim 3, Pahkala does not explicitly discuss the passenger conveyance system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a passenger detection system to determine a location associated with a user of the passenger conveyance system, optionally wherein the determined location comprises the heads or an ear of the user.
Hayakawa teaches [0066] FIG. 4 is a schematic view illustrating the relationship between the direction of a speaker unit and the location of the listener, employing an example of the relationship between the positions of the speaker unit SP1 of the driver's seat side, the listener P1 in the driver's seat (i.e. driver) and the listener P2 in the front passenger seat, optionally wherein the determined location comprises the heads or an ear of the user [0036, 0046-0047, 0050, 0073, 0098]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hayakawa into the teachings of Pahkala for the purpose of providing an effect of realizing the present invention at a lower cost and at more ease, Hayakawa [0049].
As to claim 4, Hayakawa teaches the passenger conveyance system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the passenger detection system is further configured to identify the user of the passenger conveyance system, optionally wherein the system is arranged to transmit personalized audio communications to the user based on their identification ([0066-0067], FIG. 4 is a schematic view illustrating the relationship between the direction of a speaker unit and the location of the listener, employing an example of the relationship between the positions of the speaker unit SP1 of the driver's seat side, the listener P1 in the driver's seat (i.e. driver) and the listener P2 in the front passenger seat).
7. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahkala et al. (2015/0146896) and Yamamoto (WO 2024116460 A1) in view of Hayakawa et al. (2010/0272271).
As to claim 5, Pahkala and Yamamoto do not explicitly discuss the passenger conveyance system of claim 2, wherein the passenger detection system is arranged to track the location of the user within at least one detection area.
Hayakawa teaches [0074] in the speaker system 100 of FIG. 1, if the driver or the listener sitting in the front passenger seat moves the seat back and forth as shown in FIG. 2 or changes the reclining angle, the head of the driver or the listener in the front passenger seat moves back and forth and consequently the listening position moves back and forth. In view of the above background, the speaker system 100 detects the current first and/or second listening positions if the location of the listener changes and, according to the detection result, automatically adjusts the opening angles of the speakers 101 to 104, the differences of angles of elevations between the speakers 101 to 104 and the angles of elevation of the speaker units SP1 and SP2 (hereinafter referred to as "such as directions of the speakers 101 to 104").
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hayakawa into the teachings of Pahkala and Yamamoto for the purpose of providing operational efficiency, safety, compliance, and user experience goals.
8. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahkala et al. (2015/0146896) and Yamamoto (WO 2024116460 A1) in view of Hayakawa et al. (2010/0272271) and Lake-Schaal et al. (2024/0335738).
As to claim 6, Pahkala and Yamamoto do not explicitly discuss the passenger conveyance system as claimed in claim 2, wherein the passenger detection system is arranged to detect one or more user interactions with the passenger conveyance system, optionally wherein the system is arranged to perform an action in response to the detection of a user interaction with the passenger conveyance system.
Hayakawa teaches the controlling section 150 outputs control commands for controlling the output volumes and the phases of the output sounds of the speakers 101 to 104, to the sound processing section 141. The controlling section 150 outputs the control commands for changing the sound volume of the third L channel speaker 103 to the sound processing section 141 to change the sound volume of the third L channel speaker 103 and adjust the sound volumes of the right and left speakers to be the same ([0139]).
Lake-Schaal teaches the interactive media title may be, or may include, a game, a branched narrative, or other content responsive to user input. The method may include providing, by the one or more processors, the interactive media title configured for output by at least one interactive media player during a period defined at least in part by shared presence of the passengers in the common conveyance ([0007]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hayakawa and Lake-Schaal into the teachings of Pahkala and Yamamoto for the purpose of improving operational efficiency, enhancing passenger experience, and enabling security and safety measures.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahkala et al. (2015/0146896) in view of Murphy et al. (2013/0237281) and Shimamura et al. (JP H0885697 A).
As to claim 7, Pahkala teaches the passenger conveyance system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises a plurality of directional speaker systems (claim 1, abstract, [0014] - at least one loudspeaker to be used in the elevator sound system is replaced with a plate-like electrostatic actuator producing a directed sound field; hence it would have been obvious that there could be a plurality of directional speakers). Pahkala does not explicitly teach detecting obstructions between the directional speaker system and the restricted target area; wherein the system is arranged select one of the plurality of directional systems to transmit the audio communication into the restricted target area based on the detected obstructions.
Murphy teaches the speaker and the microphone of the base station 50 allows the base station 50 transmit and receive audio to and from the remote audio communication device even if the speaker 102 and the microphone 101 of the telephone handset 1 are partially or completely obstructed by the base station 50 when the telephone handset 1 is secured to the base station ([0035]).
Shimamura teaches selecting and the sound alarm flows from a speaker 19 for monitoring to the inside of an operator room 4. In the meantime, it is transmitted as a wireless electric signal from a wireless transmitter 16 on the head end of a boom, it is caught by a receiver 17 on the side of a hook through a hook hanging space part where no obstruction exists; selected, and a voice alarm flows from the monitor speaker 19 into the operator room 4, while it is transmitted as a wireless electric signal from the wireless transmitter 16 at the tip of the boom 3, and this is a hook hanging space where no obstacle exist ([0023]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Murphy and Shimamura into the teachings of Pahkala for the purpose of maintaining reliable, high-quality signal delivery despite environmental interference.
10. Claims 8, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahkala et al. (2015/0146896).
As to claim 8, Pahkala does not explicitly discuss the passenger conveyance system of claim 1, wherein at least one directional speaker is mounted on a ceiling of an elevator car.
However, Pahkala teaches when a plate-like electrostatic actuator is installed on the ceiling, and/or wall or door of the elevator car, space is saved because the plate-like electrostatic actuator does not contain a cone that would take up a lot of space in the depth direction. In this way an elevator car can be made to be more compact in its dimensions or the extra space can be utilized for enhancing ride comfort (Fig. 4, [0017]); and The first actuator 7 is disposed on the wall 6 of the elevator. The second actuator 12 is disposed on the door 5 of the elevator car. The third actuator 8 is disposed on the ceiling of the elevator (Fig. 4, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to have the speaker mounted on a ceiling of an elevator for the purpose of combining audibility, safety, and user experience.
As to claim 11, Pahkala teaches the passenger conveyance system of claim 1, wherein at least one directional speaker system is mounted in an elevator car and is arranged to transmit an audio communication from inside the elevator car to a restricted target area outside the elevator car; and/or
wherein at least one directional speaker system is mounted outside an elevator car and is arranged to transmit an audio communication to a restricted target area inside the elevator car (claims 6-7; [0019-0020] - a plate-like electrostatic actuator is installed outside the elevator above or beside the door; [0014] - a plate-like electrostatic actuator producing a directed sound field; and (Fig. 4 and [0038] - The first actuator 7 forms a first listening area 10, the second actuator 12 forms a second listening area 9, and the third actuator 8 forms a third listening area 11 and also obviously transmitting an audio communication to area inside the elevator car).
As to claim 12, Pahkala teaches the passenger conveyance system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises a plurality of directional speaker systems (claim 1, abstract, [0014] - at least one loudspeaker to be used in the elevator sound system is replaced with a plate-like electrostatic actuator producing a directed sound field); hence it would have been obvious that there could be a plurality of directional speakers.
11. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahkala et al. (2015/0146896) in view of Commons et al. (US Patent 10,445,807) or Cohen et al. (2020/0104620).
As to claim 13, Pahkala does not explicitly discuss the passenger conveyance system of claim 12, wherein the plurality of direction speaker systems comprises a first directional speaker system and a second directional speaker system and wherein the second directional speaker system is arranged to continue an audio communication started by the first directional speaker system.
Commons teaches when the customer moves to a second location (e.g., 10 feet away, etc.), the presentation module causes the first set of speakers to discontinue the sound for that particular customer (possibly beginning to play sound for another customer), while a second set of speakers may continue, via a handoff, the audio output previously provided by the first set of speakers while the audio output is still relevant to the customer (col. 9, lines 49-56).
OR
Cohen teaches producing audio in the first audio production mode includes modulating the audio of the first speaker and second speaker so that the audio continues to be generated so as to simulate audio being produced from the first location, wherein modulating the audio is based on a change in position of the first speaker and second speaker relative to the one or more biometric sensors ([0229]; claim 5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Commons and/or Cohen into the teachings of Pahkala for the purpose of extending or refining the reach, coverage, or functionality of the first system, while maintaining the precision and privacy benefits of directional audio.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. 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.
/QUYNH H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
