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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
A. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascol (Bascol et al, “Improving Chairlift Security with Deep Learning”, IDA 2017) in view of Martin (US 2017/0166227) in further view of Gutta (US 2003/0004913)
As for claim 1, Bascol teaches
A computerized method for improved ski lift operations (abstract), comprising:
capturing, by at least one computer processor, via at least one video camera, a digital video of one or more of on-boarding and off-boarding operations of a ski lift; (Bascol, Introduction, par 2, capturing video of a boarding platform; pg 2 par 1, ln 1-3 as discussed above)
..
analyzing, by at least one computer processor, the plurality of digital images as the ski lift is operating, wherein analyzing the plurality of digital images as the ski lift is operating includes recognizing in the plurality of digital images a sequence of events that represents an abnormal on-boarding or off-boarding process at a scene of the ski lift that includes the one or more of the on-boarding area and an off-boarding area of the ski lift (Bascol Fig 3, ch 4 Experiments par 1, detecting incorrect position of the restraining bar is an example of abnormal on-boarding; pg 2 par 1, ln 1-3 as discussed above)
automatically detecting, by at least one computer processor, in real-time as the digital video is being captured, as the ski lift is operating, a potential problem situation in one or more of an on-boarding area and an off-boarding area of the ski lift based on the plurality of digital images (Fig 3, ch 4 Experiments par 1, detecting position of the restraining bar during operation of the chairlift)
wherein the automatically detecting the potential problem situation is based on the analysis of the plurality of digital images (<<);
initiating an action, by the at least one computer processor, as the ski lift is operating, to address the potential problem situation in the one or more of the on-boarding area and off-boarding area of the ski lift while the potential problem situation still exists (ch 4 Experiments par 1 triggering an alarm if “unsafe” condition is detected)
Bascol does not specifically teach, Martin however teaches
generating, by at least one computer processor, as the ski lift is operating, a plurality of digital images of the one or more of on-boarding and off-boarding operations of the ski lift based on the captured digital video (Martin [0027]) wherein the plurality of digital images includes sequences of video frames, wherein each sequence of the sequences of video frames includes a plurality of individual video frames representing a sequence of events (see “events” discussed below)
the sequence of events that represents an abnormal on-boarding or off-boarding process includes one or more of: (NOTE: only one of the recited conditions is required by the claim)
a lift rider falling while on-boarding the ski lift;
a lift rider falling while off-boarding the ski lift;
a lift rider lying or sitting the ground in a lift chair loading zone;
a lift rider being dragged by a ski lift chair;
a ski pole or other equipment of a lift rider being caught in a ski lift chair;
a lift rider proceeding to on-board the ski lift late;
a lift rider failing to exit off-boarding area;
a lift rider leaving a lift chair loading zone as a lift chair is approaching the lift rider;
a lift rider being in an incorrect position within a lift chair loading zone as the lift chair is approaching the lift rider; (Martin [0031] at least one passenger positioned in a collision area within the surveillance area; [0032] more than one passenger detected on a loading track intended for a single passenger)
an incorrect number of lift riders on a lift chair compared to a number of lift riders that were in a lift chair loading zone for the lift chair when the lift chair arrived for on-boarding;
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Bascol by including the frame generation and risk event detection of Martin, as both pertain to tracking and analysis of ski lift areas by video camera. The motivation to do so would have been, to enhance the safety of passengers by including additional risk event detection by the surveillance system.
The combination of Bascol and Martin doesn’t specifically teach, Gutta however teaches
wherein initiating the action includes:
comparing the detected potential problem situation to a plurality of predefined potential problem situations to determine a match of the detected potential problem situation to a matching one of the plurality of potential problem situations (Gutta Fig 3 el 3320, Fig 4 el 430-440), the plurality of predefined potential problem situations being stored in a memory accessible by the at least one computer processor (Fig 1 el 200 and Fig 2);
selecting an action to initiate according to a rule associated with the matching one of the plurality of predefined potential problem situation (Fig 3 el 330 “YES” branch, Fig 4 el 440 “YES” branch), the action being stored in the at least one memory (Fig 1 el 200 and Fig 2);
initiating the selected action to address the potential problem situation (Gutta Fig 3 el 430, Fig 4 450) in the one or more of the on-boarding and off-boarding area of the ski lift while the potential problem situation still exists (Bascol ch 1 par 1, stopping the chairlift; it would be obvious to apply Gutta’s hazard response framework to Bascol’s ski lift hazard surveillance implementation, see below)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Bascol and Martin to include features of Gutta, as all pertain to hazard surveillance systems. The motivation to do so would have been, to expand the capabilities of Bascol and Martin to detecting a variety of hazardous conditions benefiting from a variety of corresponding responses.
As for independent claim 11, please see discussion of analogous claim 1 above.
As for claims 5, 14 the combination of Bascol, Martin and Gutta teaches
analyzing the plurality of digital images using an artificial intelligence engine trained to assess sequences of digital images and identify normal and potential problem situations taking place in a scene of the ski lift that includes the one or more of the on-boarding area and an off-boarding area of the ski lift (Bascol, see discussion in “Response to Arguments”)
As for claim 6, the combination of Bascol, Martin and Gutta teaches
training the artificial intelligence engine, using sequences of training images of one or more of on-boarding and off-boarding operations of one or more ski lifts, to assess the sequences of digital images and identify normal and potential problem situations taking place in the scene (Bascol Fig 3, training images; ch 3.2 Training)
As for claim 8, the combination of Bascol, Martin and Gutta teaches
the initiating the action to address the potential problem situation in the one or more of the on-boarding and off-boarding area of the ski lift while the potential problem situation still exists includes initiating electronic sending of a signal to a motor controller of the ski lift to slow down or stop operation of the ski lift to address the potential problem situation in the one or more of the on-boarding and off-boarding area of the ski lift. (Schippers claim 8, control means for controlling the motor)
B. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascol, Martin and Gutta in further view of Frohlich (US 5528219)
As for claim 9, the combination of Bascol, Martin and Gutta does not teach, Frohlich however teaches
the initiating the action to address the potential problem situation in the one or more of the on-boarding and off-boarding area of the ski lift while the potential problem situation still exists includes initiating of electronic sending of an alert for a ski lift attendant (Frohlich col 3 ln 55-65, teaches communicating a dangerous condition to an operator of a chairlift such as of Fig 10, via a monitor screen, and other optical, acoustic, graphical and/or alphanumeric alarms and displays)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Bascol, Martin and Gutta, by further including the monitor screen and other alarm systems for the operator as taught by Frohlich, as the combinations pertain to the operation of a ski-lift. The motivation to do so would have been, to enable a human operator to react to a non-safe condition detected with the ski-lift operation.
As for claim 10, the combination of Bascol, Martin and Gutta does not teach, Frohlich however teaches
the sending the alert for the ski lift attendant includes one or more of: sending an audio alert, sending a message-based alert and sending a light-based alert (Frohlich col 3 ln 55-65, teaches communicating a dangerous condition to an operator of a chairlift such as of Fig 10, via a monitor screen, and other optical, acoustic, graphical and/or alphanumeric alarms and displays)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Bascol and Martin, by further including the monitor screen and other alarm systems for the operator, as the combinations pertain to the operation of a ski-lift. The motivation to do so would have been, to enable a human operator to react to a non-safe condition detected with the ski-lift operation.
C. Claims 15 ,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bascol, Martin and Gutta in further view of Schippers (US 3,868,907)
As for independent claim 15, please see discussion of analogous claim 1 above for the majority of the claim limitations in view of discussed combination of Bascol and Martin.
the combination of Bascol, Martin and Gutta do not explicitly teach, Schippers however teaches
a ski lift motor controller of a ski lift (Shippers claim 8)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Bascol, Martin and Gutta to further include the motor controller of Schippers, as the combination pertains to operation of ski lifts. The motivation would have been, Bascol, Introduction 1st paragraph, teaches slowing down or stopping the chairlift when an unsafe condition is detected, but is silent on how this is achieved. Schippers teaches a motor controller that is capable of controlling or stopping the ski lift operation.
As for claim 18, please see above discussion of claim 5.
Final Rejection
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK ROZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3382. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chan Park can be reached on (571)272-7409. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK ROZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights