DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP2024-223594 filed in Japan on 12/18/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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. Such claim limitation is:
(a) “a controller” configured to control opening and closing and determine presence or absence and vary timing, in Claims 1-9,
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “controller” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
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. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) specification ¶0022-0023 and Figure 2 establish that the controller corresponds to one or more processors and algorithms for the functions.
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.
Claims 2, 4-8, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20 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.
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 18, the phrase “a movement direction of the captured range in which the at least one mobile object is present” renders the claim indefinite. As best understood in view of the specification and the independent claims, the “captured range” is the area that the camera can sense. It is not clear what “movement direction of the captured range” means in this context, and whether the sensed area is actually changing or moving, or alternatively whether the phrase is referring to the movement directions of the mobile object that is present in the captured range. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as the movement direction of the mobile object.
Regarding Claims 4, 13, and 20, the two limitations render the claims indefinite. The first limitation recites a vector “of the mobile object being captured” in each of multiple blocks (i.e. appearing to recite a single mobile object being considered in plural blocks), however the second limitation recites a different categorization of two objects (a moving object versus a mobile object that has been determined not to intend to board, i.e. appearing to recite plural objects make up the plural blocks). It is generally unclear whether the claim pertains to a single mobile object or any number of potential objects that are sensed in the blocks. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as the limitations separately applying to any respective objects in the respective blocks.
Claims 5-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 4 or 13, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication JP2017124899A (Noda) (English translation filed with IDS 11/25/2025 is relied upon for citations) in view of Publication US2021/0301580A1 (Tamura).
Regarding Claim 1, Noda discloses a door control apparatus (see Figure 1) comprising:
a controller (see [0014] image processing system, processing data, which [0017] may be provided in the basket control device) configured to control opening and closing of a door provided at an opening of a car (see [0019] control door open and close of car), based on captured data (see [0019] based on detected user) for a captured range located in an external area relative to the opening (see Figures 1, 2, [0010-0011], photographic range of camera outside door), at least one mobile object being present in the captured range (see [0014, 0019] detected user),
wherein the controller is configured to:
determine presence or absence of the at least one mobile object's intention to board the car (see Figure 8, [0053] yes or no at S15 for user with entrainment intention detected), from time-series data of the captured data (see [0034]), based on a positional relationship between the opening and the at least one mobile object's movement direction (see [0035] entrainment intention processing in S14c [0065] as detailed in Figure 15, based on movement in direction of the door); and
vary opening and closing timing of the door based on a determination result of the presence or absence of the intention to board the car (see [0054] resetting count value for door closing (i.e. prolonging opening and delaying closing timing) based on user with entrainment intention).
Noda does not explicitly recite the door being for an opening of a vehicle.
However, Tamura teaches automated door control based on mobile object detection (see [0020, 0030]), in:
a vehicle (see Figure 1, [0019-0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller for an elevator car door to instead be used in a vehicle application as taught by Tamura, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the marketability and flexibility of the controller to be used in additional applications and improving convenience of passengers (see Tamura, [0056]).
Regarding Claim 2, Noda discloses the door control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when determining the presence or absence of the at least one mobile object's intention to board the vehicle, the controller is configured to determine the presence or absence of the at least one mobile object's intention to board the vehicle (see [0053] yes or no at S15, in view of the combination with Tamura in the rejection of Claim 1, above), based on a positional relationship between the opening and a movement direction of the captured range in which the at least one mobile object is present in the captured data (see [0035] entrainment intention processing in S14c [0065] as detailed in Figure 15, based on movement in direction of the door).
Regarding Claim 4, Noda discloses the door control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
calculate a vector including a direction of motion and a magnitude of motion of the mobile object being captured (see [0065-0068] speed of walk in direction of door, i.e. Y axis vector), in each of multiple blocks included in the captured range (see Figures 6, 7, [0031] entrainment intention performed for plural bodies P1 and P2); and
determine blocks with vectors meeting a condition as moving object blocks (see [0071] speed above threshold value (yes at C21) then entrainment intention exists (i.e. moving toward door)), and determine blocks with vectors not meeting the condition as blocks capturing a mobile object that has been determined not to intend to board the vehicle (see [0071] for “no” at C21 and speed below threshold, no entrainment intention).
Regarding Claim 5, Noda discloses the door control apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to remove, as noise, a block meeting a condition among the moving object blocks (see [0047-0049]).
Regarding Claim 6, Noda discloses the door control apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to group adjacent blocks among the moving object blocks, and recognize a group of the moving object blocks as the mobile object (see [0031] aggregate of blocks forming region of user).
Regarding Claim 9, Noda discloses vehicle control system comprising:
the door control apparatus according to claim 1 (see the rejection of Claim 1, above); and
a camera configured to capture the captured data (see [0010-0011]).
Noda does not explicitly recite the vehicle.
However, Tamura teaches the door control as above, the system including:
the vehicle (see Figure 1, [0019]).
The motivation to combine Noda and Tamura was provided in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 10-11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6. Claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 pertain to a method corresponding to the apparatus Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6, respectively. Claims 17, 18, and 20 pertain to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the apparatus of Claims 1, 2, and 4, respectively. Claims 10-11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication JP2017124899A (Noda) (English translation filed with IDS 11/25/2025 is relied upon for citations) in view of Publication US2021/0301580A1 (Tamura), further in view of Publication US2014/0169689A1 (Ohsawa).
Regarding Claim 3, Noda further discloses captured ranges of multiple mobile objects that have been determined, from the captured data (see Figures 6, 7, [0031]), and an area of an object not to intend to board the vehicle as a pedestrian area (see [0053, 0056] for no entrainment intention, [0066] such as no y-axis direction toward door, i.e. pedestrian passing by).
Noda does not explicitly recite the door control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when a distance between captured ranges of multiple mobile objects that have been determined, from the captured data, not to intend to board the vehicle is less than a predetermined value, the controller is configured to set, as a pedestrian area, an area including the captured ranges of the multiple mobile objects that have been determined not to intend to board the vehicle and blocks between the captured ranges, among multiple blocks divided in the captured data.
However, Ohsawa teaches a technique in recognizing objects in an image (see [0041] photographed target),
wherein when a distance between captured ranges of multiple objects that have been determined, from the captured data, is less than a predetermined value (see Figure 2A, [0031] same distance group for measurement areas), the controller is configured to set, as an area, an area including the captured ranges of the multiple mobile objects that have been determined and blocks between the captured ranges, among multiple blocks divided in the captured data (see Figure 5, [0050] grouped blocks and blocks in between as single object representation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the determination of the objects without entrainment intention and pedestrian area of Noda to be able to be grouped as taught by Ohsawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of simplifying the scene and improving accuracy by handling erroneous information (see Ohsawa, [0039]).
Regarding Claims 12 and 19: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 3. Claims 12 and 19 pertain to a method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the apparatus of Claim 3. Claims 12 and 19 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 3, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication JP2017124899A (Noda) (English translation filed with IDS 11/25/2025 is relied upon for citations) in view of Publication US2021/0301580A1 (Tamura), further in view of Publication US2017/0134649A1 (Wakamatsu).
Regarding Claim 7, Noda does not explicitly recite the door control apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to correct magnitudes of motion of the mobile object based on a ground position of the mobile object in the captured data.
However, Wakamatsu teaches a technique in handling motion data of captured objects (see [0033]),
wherein the controller is configured to correct magnitudes of motion of the mobile object based on a ground position of the mobile object in the captured data (see Figure 6B, [0058], applying weighting factor according to particular block of image and Figure 6A, [0055] corresponding to objects on ground).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the motion vectors of Noda to be corrected in the manner as taught by Wakamatsu, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving subject tracking and accuracy (see Wakamatsu, [0007-0010]).
Regarding Claim 8, Noda does not explicitly recite the door control apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to correct the magnitudes of motion of the mobile object by multiplying each magnitude of motion of the mobile object by a coefficient corresponding to a combination of the ground position of the mobile object in the captured data and a vertical position of the block capturing the mobile object.
However, Wakamatsu teaches a technique as above,
wherein the controller is configured to correct the magnitudes of motion of the mobile object by multiplying each magnitude of motion of the mobile object by a coefficient corresponding to a combination of the ground position of the mobile object in the captured data and a vertical position of the block capturing the mobile object (see [0058] multiplying motion vector values by weighting factor which corresponds to block position (i.e. horizontal position along ground and vertical position in image being vertical block)).
The motivation to combine Noda and Wakamatsu was provided in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16 all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 7 and 8. Claims 15 and 16 pertain to a method corresponding to the apparatus of Claims 7 and 8. Claims 15 and 16 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 7 and 8, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
