DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “A vehicle control device comprising” may be better understood as “A vehicle control device, comprising:” and “area; and an area of the first area is smaller than an area of the second area” would be better understood as “area[[; and]], wherein an area of the first area is smaller than an area of the second area”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: control unit is configured to…predict…determine… in claims 1-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicants’ specification recites [0010]: control unit 13 includes at least one processor. The processor is, for example, a general-purpose processor such as a CPU or a special-purpose processor specialized for a particular process.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the control unit is configured to when a person is detected based on the time-series data of the image, predict a predicted position of the detected person after a predetermined time”. However, “after” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear to whether the predetermined time begins after a person is detected. Dependent claims are rejected as being dependent upon and failing to cure the deficiencies of the independent claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a timing to close the door of the vehicle is delayed when it is specified that a person is present in the first area as compared with when it is specified that a person is present in the second area”. It is unclear to whether “a person” is the same or different person introduced in independent claim 1. Also, the claim limitation would be better understood as clarifying whether the control unit or other hardware that executes the delaying and specifying.
Claim 4 recites “a person”; however, it is unclear to whether a person in claim 4 is the same or different person that is detected in independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See MPEP 2106.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 are directed to a device. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim(s) 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claims for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
a control unit that acquires time-series data of an image generated by capturing a scene outside a vehicle, wherein: the control unit is configured to
when a person is detected based on the time-series data of the image, predict a predicted position of the detected person after a predetermined time, and
determine whether the detected person intends to ride on the vehicle based on a result of determining whether a line segment including a current position of the detected person and the predicted position of the detected person is included in a first area and a result of determining whether the current position of the detected person is included in a second area; and an area of the first area is smaller than an area of the second area.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation(s) in the context of this claim encompasses estimating a movement trajectory of a person based on collected image data; judging whether the person intends to board a vehicle based on the predicted trajectory and regions in proximity to the vehicle.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
Claim 1 recites:
a control unit that acquires time-series data of an image generated by capturing a scene outside a vehicle, wherein: the control unit is configured to
when a person is detected based on the time-series data of the image, predict a predicted position of the detected person after a predetermined time, and
determine whether the detected person intends to ride on the vehicle based on a result of determining whether a line segment including a current position of the detected person and the predicted position of the detected person is included in a first area and a result of determining whether the current position of the detected person is included in a second area; and an area of the first area is smaller than an area of the second area
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The additional limitation steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data, transmitting signals, outputting a notification), and amounts to mere data gathering and storing and transmitting do not add a meaningful limitation to the process (MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754), which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP 2106, representative independent claim does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations do not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering and notifying/displaying/outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities; the additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer components. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Moreover, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-2, 4 is/are ineligible under 35 USC 101. For purposes of compact prosecution, Applicant may be in favor of incorporating the claim language of claim 3 into the independent claim to overcome the instant 35 USC 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10977826 (Russo).
As per claim 1, Russo discloses a vehicle control device comprising
a control unit that acquires time-series data of an image generated by capturing a scene outside a vehicle (see at least column 10 lines 20-25: although other applications are also applicable including bus or subway platforms; elevators; entrances, for example to malls or stores; and vehicle systems, such as garage doors and gates. Platform 410 represents an area in which an object of interest, such as passengers 440, can access train 420, column 10 lines 51-67: passenger 440a, in a first time segment, video analytics module 224 determines 440a moves along the path shown by vector 510a…may represent a number of frames over a certain time period, for example one second. In the second time segment, as determined by video analytics module 224, passenger 440a moves along the path shown by vector 520a.),
wherein:
the control unit is configured to when a person is detected based on the time-series data of the image, predict a predicted position of the detected person after a predetermined time (see at least column 10 lines 51-67: passenger 440a, in a first time segment, video analytics module 224 determines 440a moves along the path shown by vector 510a…may represent a number of frames over a certain time period, for example one second. In the second time segment, as determined by video analytics module 224, passenger 440a moves along the path shown by vector 520a. While this still leaves passenger 440a outside of area of interest 450a at the end of the second time segment, the system uses vectors 510a and 520a to project the anticipated path of movement along vector 540a. This anticipated path of movement may be represented by a vector anticipating the location of passenger 440a at the end of the next time segment, or the projected path of movement may be calculated for the remaining length of time until the doors 430 begin closing or doors 430 close), and
determine whether the detected person intends to ride on the vehicle based on a result of determining whether a line segment including a current position of the detected person and the predicted position of the detected person is included in a first area and a result of determining whether the current position of the detected person is included in a second area (column 11 lines 12-14: Passenger 440b follows a similar path, along vectors 510b and 520b, with projected movement along vector 540b into area of interest 450b); and
an area of the first area is smaller than an area of the second area (see at least column 10 lines 38-42: Image capture devices 108 may be positioned relatively fixed to platform 410, e.g. above platform 410; or alternatively may be positioned relatively fixed to train 420, e.g. above each door 430 of train 420. An area of interest 450 may be defined relative to each door 430).
As per claim 2, Russo discloses wherein the control unit determines that the detected person intends to ride on the vehicle when it is determined that the line segment is included in the first area and that the current of the detected person is in the second area (see at least column 12 lines 23-32: determination is as to what is the likelihood that the object of interest may impede closing of the automatic door and thereby possibly cause an injury (step 750). This likelihood may be based on factors such as vector 540 predicting the movement of the target of interest as well as other factors, such as entry of the passenger into the area of interest 450…obtaining a predicted path of motion from a neural network, column 12 lines 36-38: If the likelihood is equal to or greater than the threshold value, then door 430 is maintained in an open position (step 770)).
As per claim 3, Russo discloses wherein: the control unit executes a door control process of controlling a door of the vehicle based on a determination result of whether the detected person intends to ride on the vehicle (column 12 lines 36-38: If the likelihood is equal to or greater than the threshold value, then door 430 is maintained in an open position (step 770)); and
a timing to close the door of the vehicle is delayed when it is specified that a person is present in the first area as compared with when it is specified that a person is present in the second area (see at least column 12 lines 26-29: likelihood may be based on factors such as vector 540 predicting the movement of the target of interest as well as other factors, such as entry of the passenger into the area of interest 450…If the likelihood is equal to or greater than the threshold value, then door 430 is maintained in an open position (step 770)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo in view of US 20220341247 (Kishioka) and US 20220013045 (Takeda).
As per claim 4, Russo does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to execute a notification process of indicating information relating to control of a door of the vehicle based on a determination result of whether the detected person intends to ride on the vehicle, and change a notification content of the information relating to the control of the door between when it is specified that a person is present in the first area and when it is specified that a person is present in the second area.
However, Kishioka teaches wherein the control unit is configured to execute a notification process of indicating information relating to control of a door of the vehicle based on a determination result of whether the detected person intends to ride on the vehicle (see at least [0042]: doors for public transportation vehicles (e.g., electric railcars and buses), [0046]: passage assistance apparatus 1 may be connectable to a camera 31, [0047]: server, computer, [0059]: acquire real time images of the surrounding region of the automatic door, [0060]: real time image is preferably an image captured continuously or discontinuously over time, [0122]: it is possible to associate, as the passage assistance information, the moving object attribute information “there is white cane, which is accessory, for visually impaired person” with the guide condition “sound guidance of “automatic door is open””, which is a passage condition, [0141]: if the specific motion detection unit 16 has also detected the same specific motion in the identification performed after the specific motion has been detected, for example, the specific motion detection unit 16 detects that the specific motion is continuing, [0154]: if the announcement “please be careful not to slip” to an automatic door user is set as a passage guide condition, for example, sensor data regarding the state where slip may occur, that is, sensor data regarding raining in the surrounding region of the automatic door, or the like may be stored in the storage unit 10 as the sensor data attribute information, and the passage condition of the announcement may be associated therewith, [0175]: If there is a person who moves to the automatic door and has a white cane (YES in S107), an opening/closing condition for a visually impaired person is selected (S116), the automatic door is opened (S114), and an announcement for a visually impaired person is performed (S117). The announcement is sound guidance from the speaker).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Russo by incorporating the teachings of Kishioka, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve convenience and prevent occurrent of accidents and to realize a more human-friendly environment (see at least Kishioka [0131]: attributes of a moving object are identified and the motion of the moving object is identified by performing image analysis, and thus it is possible to open/close an automatic door that is suitable for the attributes or motions and provide announcements in this manner. Thus, it is possible to improve convenience and prevent the occurrence of accidents, for example. It is possible to realize a more human-friendly environment because automatic doors are opened/closed and announcements are made according to characteristics of passing persons who have difficulty in smooth movement).
Further, Takeda teaches wherein the control unit is configured to change a notification content of the information relating to the control of the door between when it is specified that a person is present in the first area and when it is specified that a person is present in the second area (see at least Takeda [0101]: automatic driving vehicle according to the embodiments can be applied to public transportation, for example, a bus, [0114]: FIGS. 11A, 11B, and 11C, the automatic driving vehicle (own vehicle) 1 is parked or stopped, and a pedestrian M as a viewer is present in the vicinity of the own vehicle 1…control unit, [0115]: in view of the fact that the distance Lx is equal to or greater than the first reference distance L1, the image “ABCD” is displayed as large as possible. As a result, the pedestrian M at a position farther from the own vehicle 1 than the first reference distance L1 can visually recognize and confirm the image, [0116], [0117]: viewer detecting portion 32 detects that the pedestrian M moves to a position extremely close to the own vehicle 1. When the distance Lx is shorter than the second reference distance L2, the image control unit 33 further reduces the image “ABCD”. As a result, the available display space of the display panel 2L is enlarged, and the own vehicle 1 displays still another image, for example, “efgh”, so that the information to be displayed can be further increased).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Russo by incorporating the teachings of Takeda, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order that the pedestrian may visually recognize the information (see at least Takeda [0114]-[0117]: pedestrian M at a position farther from the own vehicle 1 than the first reference distance L1 can visually recognize and confirm the image).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12188289 (Wegner) (see at least abstract: method for operating a door actuator of a door system, having at least one movable door leaf and having a control device, and having a sensor unit, configured to detect people in a region before the door system, and transmits information about the people to the control device, includes at least the following steps: detecting a first person and, calculating the probable arrival time thereof at the door leaf, calculating first control parameters to actuate the door leaf in relation to the first person, and detecting at least one second person, and calculating the probable arrival time thereof, calculating second control parameters to actuate the door leaf in relation to the second person, linking the first control parameters with the second control parameters to form a first control parameter set, and controlling the drive of the door leaf on the basis of the set).
US 20180357912 (Kessler) (see at least [0134] Passengers may be pre-positioned in the geo fenced boarding zones. For example, there may be multiple staging areas, which may include an initial zone or outer geo zone, a medium zone or inner geo zone, and a vehicle zone. The initial zone may be 30 meters to 50 meters from a vehicle slot, for example, approximately 45 meters. Additionally, the medium zone may be 10 meters to 20 meters from the vehicle slot, for example, 18 meters. The vehicle zone may be 4 meters to 6 meters from the vehicle slot. As discussed herein, passengers are estimated to walk with an average speed of 1.5 meters per second, [0135] Using the average speed above, initial passenger recognition at 45 meters equates to 30 seconds. Additionally, an average passenger boarding time or “dwell time” may be approximately 40 seconds. Additionally, and estimated acceptable time for a passenger to wait from door close (e.g., enter vehicle and close vehicle door) and the passenger informs or acknowledges their readiness to depart such that the vehicle starts rolling is approximately 15 to 30 seconds. Thus, in an example embodiment, approximately 85 seconds may pass from passenger recognition to wheel start, which may represent the maximum boarding zone time buffer, [0238]).
US 20240200387 (Kang) (see at least [0056]: If an information message, for providing a notification that the door is scheduled to be closed, is output, the processor 150 may determine whether an entity (e.g., passenger) approaching the vehicle is present, based on information obtained from one or more of the sensor 110 and the camera 120. Until the door is completely closed after the boarding of the entity is completed, the processor 150 may determine whether an entity approaching the vehicle is present, [0070]: if the time (e.g., an estimated time) required for the entity to reach the vehicle is not greater than the threshold time (a time from point in time when an information message for providing a notification that a door is scheduled to be closed is output to a point in time when the door starts to be closed), the processor 150 may determine that the entity is capable of boarding the vehicle, [0074]: if the processor 150 determines that there is an entity P1 approaching a vehicle 10 (FIG. 4), after a message indicating that a door is scheduled to be closed after a threshold time is displayed, the processor 150 may obtain tracking data of the entity P1, may track a position change according to the movement of the entity P1 based on a vehicle center (0, 0), and may indicate the tracked position as coordinates (FIG. 5), Fig. 12, Fig. 13)).
US 11403946 (Jang) (see at least column 1 lines 65-67: providing a vehicle control device for guiding a user to get on and off a vehicle in an optimized manner, column 2 lines 2-5: providing a vehicle control device capable of notifying a user of an object approaching toward a vehicle door in an optimized manner when the user is getting on and off a vehicle, column 26 lines 45-47: FIG. 13, the processor 870 may determine the number of getting-on passengers 1270 to be boarded on the vehicle via the sensing unit 120, column 26 lines 60-67: FIG. 13, when the number of getting-on passengers is n persons (for example, three persons), the beam output unit 830 may be controlled such that the image, (for example, the second image 1200b) is irradiated to the road surface of the periphery of the vehicle door by a first length d1 corresponding to the n persons, column 27 lines 1-6: as shown in (b) of FIG. 13, when the number of getting-on passengers present outside the vehicle decreases from n person to m person (for example, 2 persons) less than n person, as the getting-on passenger gets on, the processor 870 may control the beam output unit 830 so that the image 1200b is irradiated to the road surface of the periphery of the vehicle door by a second length (second length shorter than the first length) d2 corresponding to the m person).
US 20250392891 (Nemec) (see at least [0019]: person may believe the vehicle has stopped for him or her and walk towards the vehicle, whereas in reality, the vehicle is intending to continue towards the pickup location and allow the person to enter the vehicle at that location, [0060]: by observing changes in position and orientation of a pedestrian over time, the computing devices may use information about a pedestrian's trajectory to determine whether the pedestrian's trajectory corresponds to a pedestrian attempting to move towards the vehicle, whether the pedestrian's trajectory corresponds to an expected trajectory from a nearby building (for instance a building corresponding to an address for a pickup location) to a pickup location, whether the pedestrian's trajectory corresponds to an expected trajectory from a nearby building to a location proximate to the pickup location where the vehicle is likely to stop (for instance, a shoulder area or parking area), whether the pedestrian's trajectory indicates that the pedestrian is moving towards a pickup location, [0076]: Each distance is essentially a threshold distance corresponds to an area in which the computing devices would expect a pedestrian to be within after a predetermined period of time if the pedestrian was progressing towards the vehicle after being identified within ring 810, claim 11: wherein determining that the person is making progress towards the vehicle includes: determining that the person is within a first area around the vehicle using the sensor data; and after determining that the person is within the first area, determining that the person is within a second area around the vehicle, the second area being smaller than the first area, claim 12: wherein determining that the person is making progress towards the vehicle includes: determining that the person is within a first area around the vehicle using the sensor data; and after determining that the person is within the first area, determining that the person is not within a second area around the vehicle, the second area being smaller than the first area, claim 14: determine the second area based on a dimension of the first area and an expected walking speed of a pedestrian).
US 20200380252 (Ding) (see at least [0037], [0044]: frame 200 may be apportioned to a first region 214, a second region 212, and a third region 210…based on detecting and tracking the trajectory path of the detected human 204 over multiple frames captured by the first video camera 120, the control circuit 102 may determine that the detected human 204 is exiting the retail facility 118 through the entrance area, [0045]: control circuit 102 may determine that the detected human 204 has moved from the first region to the second region and to the third region based on the set of rules 110 and/or a detection of the detection module 106 and a tracking of the tracking module 104, at step 712).
US 5986561 (Kuruvilla) (see at least abstract: a speaker capable of producing audible alarm warnings as well as audible verbal warning messages, it is capable of warning incoming passengers that automatic door closure is imminent. When a door close signal is received from existing door control circuitry, the apparatus is activated and it produces the audible and visual warning messages. After an appropriate delay period the audible and visual warning devices are deactivated and a door close signal is issued to the existing automatic doors and associated door safety guard circuitry).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights