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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, 14-17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Within claim 1, line 21: “camera(s)” should be “one or more cameras” for consistency. This likewise applies to claims 11, 15 and 17.
Within claim 2, line 3: “slowdown” should be “deceleration” as previously claimed. This likewise applies to claims 5, 6 and 16.
Within claim 7, line 5 “the pressure plate(s)” and “the pressure plate” in line 6 should be “the at least one pressure plate” for consistency. This likewise applies to claim 10.
Within claim 14, line 2: “from the group comprising chairs, chairs with seat bar locking and chairs with bubbles and seat bar locking.” should be “from the group comprising: chairs, chairs with seat bar locking, and chairs with bubbles and seat bar locking.” This likewise applies to claim 20.
Within claim 15, line 15: “camera” should be “cameras”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
The following are non-limiting examples of indefinite or unclear claim limitations:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the presence" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection likewise applies to claims 7, 8 and 15.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the entry movement" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending to “[[the]] entry movement”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the virtual entry vehicle gate” in lines 25 and 26 after previously reciting “a virtual entry vehicle grid” making it unclear if the limitation is referring to the previously recited limitation or is a separate component. This rejection likewise applies to claim 5.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the exit area" in lines 10, 23 and 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending to, “the at least one predetermined exit area”. This rejection likewise applies to claims 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the predetermined exit area" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending to “the at least one predetermined exit area” as previously recited. This rejection likewise applies to claim 2.
Claim 1 contains the indefinite pronoun “its” within line 11. Please replace with the noun to which it refers. This rejection likewise applies to claim 15.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a vehicle” multiple times after claiming “a plurality of vehicles”. It is unclear if the multiple recitations of “a vehicle” are all the same vehicle being recited or at least one of the plurality of vehicles being claimed. This rejection likewise applies to claim 15.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "such an entry” within line 24. This limitation is unclear to Examiner as to which limitation is being claimed. Examiner recommends amending, “from entering the at least one predetermined exit area”. This rejection likewise applies to claim 15.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the case" in line 24 and 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the motor control" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection likewise applies to claim 15.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the implementation" in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection likewise applies to claim 15.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the cameras" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending, “the one or more cameras” as previously recited. This rejection likewise applies to claim 16.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the basis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection likewise applies to claims 3 and 16.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the movement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the path" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the peripheral edge" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the group" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection likewise applies to claims 12 and 18.
Claim 4 recites “further elements from the group comprising: one or more physical access barriers with and/or without detection sensors” followed by “wherein the one or more further elements are provided with detection sensors” making the claim indefinite. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the entry" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection likewise applies to claims 5 and 6.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the virtual exit vehicle gate” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending to “the virtual exit vehicle grid” as previously claimed.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the other side” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “so that when the presence of a person on the pressure plate is detected.” with no further limitations including the result of the detection making the claim unclear.
Claim 8 is directed to a product and a process, it is unclear to Examiner what the scope of the claimed limitations are. The claim is dependent upon a product claim and claims a product (“system”) while then claiming a process (“when presence..detected”) which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP § 2173.05(p). Examiner recommends amending to include that the system “is configured to” or an equivalent to claim the system by its function.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the force of gravity” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the entry movement” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the at least one predetermined direct entry area” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9, 13 and 19 are rejected due to their dependency upon a rejected claim.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Queen (WO 2021011157 A1) in view of Hoeck et al. (US 20230322274 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Queen teaches a ropeway system for people (Fig.3) comprising: an entry station and an exit station for people as passengers (Para.[0003], line 3), a plurality of vehicles mounted on a traction cable for movement between the entry station and the exit station (Figs.3 and 4),
electronic passenger detection means for detecting the presence of a passenger in a vehicle (Para.[0025], lines 6-10),
one or more cameras (102; Fig.5) provided for capturing images of at least one predetermined exit area at the exit station (Para.[0031], lines 1-2),
and a hazard detection evaluation unit (104; Fig.2), wherein the vehicles are arranged to move along a loop passing through the entry station and the exit station, wherein each vehicle comprises a seating area for at least one passenger (Para.[0081], lines 8-11 and Fig.3), wherein
the hazard detection evaluation unit is connected to the one or more cameras for receiving captured image data (Para.[0037], lines 1-6), wherein the hazard detection evaluation unit is configured to determine the presence of one or more of a group comprising a vehicle and one or more persons in the predetermined exit area, by evaluating successive image data from the camera(s) (Para.[0004], lines 3-27), wherein the hazard detection evaluation unit is configured to generate an emergency deceleration or emergency stop signal when a vehicle enters the exit area or is at a predetermined distance from such an entry in the case of the presence of a person in a predetermined section of the exit area (Para.[0032], lines 4-10), and is further configured to transmit said signal to the motor control of the ropeway system for the implementation of said signal for the movement of the vehicle (Para.[0032], lines 4-10). Queen does not teach a virtual entry vehicle grid, which is provided transversely to the entry movement of a vehicle at an exit edge of the exit area and comprising at least one sensor for capturing sensor data relating to an object or person entering its monitoring area; wherein the hazard detection evaluation unit is further connected to the virtual entry vehicle grid for receiving captured sensor data and is configured to generate an emergency deceleration or emergency stop signal when an object entering the monitoring area of the virtual entry vehicle gate is detected outside a passage of a vehicle through the virtual entry vehicle gate.
However, Hoeck teaches the use of a virtual entry vehicle grid, which is provided transversely to the entry movement of a vehicle at an exit edge of the exit area and comprising at least one sensor for capturing sensor data relating to an object or person entering its monitoring area (S1,D; Fig.2 and Para.[0038], lines 1-4 and Para.[0040]); wherein the hazard detection evaluation unit is further connected to the virtual entry vehicle grid for receiving captured sensor data (Para.[0042], lines 1-6) and is configured to generate an emergency deceleration or emergency stop signal when an object entering the monitoring area of the virtual entry vehicle gate is detected outside a passage of a vehicle through the virtual entry vehicle gate (Para.[0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Queen with the virtual grid as taught within Hoeck to provide additional safety measures for passenger safety to prevent injuries with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2: Queen further teaches the ropeway system according to claim 1, wherein the hazard detection evaluation unit is configured to determine, by evaluating successive image data from the cameras, a fall of a person in the image data in the predetermined exit area, on the basis of which the emergency slowdown or emergency stop signal is generated (Para.[0004] and Para.[0032], lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 3: Queen further teaches the ropeway system according to claim 1, wherein the hazard detection evaluation unit is configured to determine the movement of a person in the direction of the path of travel of the vehicles by evaluating successive image data from the cameras, on the basis of which the emergency deceleration or emergency stop signal can be generated (Para.[0004] and Para.[0032], lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 4: Queen does not teach wherein the peripheral edge of the exit area is closed by at least one of the further elements from the group comprising: one or more physical access barriers with and/or without detection sensors, a virtual passenger exit gate, and a virtual exit vehicle grid; wherein the one or more further elements are provided with detection sensors and connected to the hazard detection evaluation unit, so that when the entry of a non-passenger into the exit area is detected, the said emergency deceleration or emergency stop signal is triggered.
However, Hoeck teaches the ropeway system according to claim 1, wherein the peripheral edge of the exit area is closed by at least one of the further elements from the group comprising: one or more physical access barriers (15,16; Fig.2) with and/or without detection sensors, a virtual passenger exit gate (Para.[0050], lines 12-17), and a virtual exit vehicle grid (D at exit; Fig.2); wherein the one or more further elements are provided with detection sensors and connected to the hazard detection evaluation unit, so that when the entry of a non-passenger into the exit area is detected (Para.[0050]), the said emergency deceleration or emergency stop signal is triggered (Para.[0042], lines 10-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Queen with the barriers and virtual grid as taught within Hoeck to provide additional safety measures for passenger safety to prevent injuries with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5: Queen does not teach wherein one or more lateral vehicle limiting gates are associated with the virtual entry vehicle gate, wherein said lateral vehicle limiting gates are connected to the hazard detection evaluation unit, so that upon detecting the entry of a non-passenger into the exit area, said emergency slowdown or emergency stop signal is triggered by touching a gate or a pivoting movement of a gate.
However, Hoeck teaches wherein one or more lateral vehicle limiting gates (12a,12b; Fig.2) are associated with the virtual entry vehicle gate (E; Fig.2), wherein said lateral vehicle limiting gates are connected to the hazard detection evaluation unit (Para.[0041] and Para.[0042]), so that upon detecting the entry of a non-passenger into the exit area, said emergency slowdown or emergency stop signal is triggered (Para.[0042], lines 10-15 by touching a gate or a pivoting movement of a gate (Para.[0041]-[0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Queen with the limiting and virtual gates as taught within Hoeck to provide additional safety measures for passenger safety to prevent injuries with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6: Queen does not teach wherein one or more lateral vehicle limiting gates are associated with the virtual exit vehicle gate, wherein said lateral vehicle limiting gates are connected to the hazard detection evaluation unit, so that upon detecting the entry of a non-passenger into the exit area, said emergency slowdown or emergency stop signal is triggered by touching or pivoting movement of the gates.
However, Hoeck teaches wherein one or more lateral vehicle limiting gates (12a,12b; Fig.2) are associated with the virtual entry vehicle gate (E; Fig.2), wherein said lateral vehicle limiting gates are connected to the hazard detection evaluation unit (Para.[0041] and Para.[0042]), so that upon detecting the entry of a non-passenger into the exit area, said emergency slowdown or emergency stop signal is triggered (Para.[0042], lines 10-15 by touching or pivoting movement of the gates (Para.[0041]-[0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Queen with the limiting and virtual gates as taught within Hoeck to provide additional safety measures for passenger safety to prevent injuries with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11: Queen further teaches the ropeway system according to claim 1, further comprising an operator display device, wherein images from the camera(s) are transmitted from the camera(s) to the operator display device via a signal transmitter (202; Fig.2 and Para.[0026], lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 12: Queen further teaches the ropeway system according to claim 11, wherein the operator display device (202; Fig.2) comprises one or more elements from the group: an operator's smartphone with a control app for the ropeway system, and a screen and intercom in a duty room of the ropeway system with control elements for the ropeway system (Para.[0025], lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 13: Queen further teaches the ropeway system according to claim 1, wherein the entry station is a valley station and the exit station is a mountain station (Para.[0081], lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 14: Queen further teaches the ropeway system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicles of the ropeway system are from the group comprising chairs (Figs.3,4).
Regarding claim 15: Queen teaches a ropeway system for people comprising: an entry station and an exit station for people as passengers (Para.[0003], lines 3), a plurality of vehicles mounted on a traction cable for movement between the entry station and the exit station (Figs.3 and 4),
electronic passenger detection means for detecting the presence of a passenger in a vehicle (Para.[0025], lines 6-10),
one or more cameras (102; Fig.5) provided for capturing images of the at least one predetermined direct entry area (Para.[0031], lines 1-2),
and a hazard detection evaluation unit (104; Fig.2);
wherein the vehicles are arranged to move along a loop passing through the entry station and the exit station, wherein each vehicle comprises a seating area for at least one passenger (Para.[0081], lines 8-11 and Fig.3), wherein the hazard detection evaluation unit is connected to the one or more camera for receiving captured image data (Para.[0037], lines 1-6), wherein the hazard detection evaluation unit is configured to determine the presence of a passenger in the direct entry area by evaluating successive image data from the camera(s) (Para.[0004], lines 3-27), wherein the hazard detection evaluation unit is configured to generate an emergency deceleration or emergency stop signal when the vehicle of the boarding passenger leaves the direct entry area and another vehicle enters the direct entry area or is at a predetermined distance from such an entry, and is further configured to transmit said signal to the motor control of the ropeway system for the implementation of said signal for the movement of the vehicles (Para.[0032], lines 4-10). Queen does not teach a virtual entry vehicle grid, which is provided transversely to the entry movement of a vehicle at an entry edge of the direct entry area and comprising at least one sensor for capturing sensor data relating to an object or person entering its monitoring area or wherein the hazard detection evaluation unit is further connected to the virtual entry vehicle grid for receiving captured sensor data.
However, Hoeck teaches a virtual entry vehicle grid, which is provided transversely to the entry movement of a vehicle at an entry edge of the direct entry area and comprising at least one sensor for capturing sensor data relating to an object or person entering its monitoring area (S1,D; Fig.2 and Para.[0038], lines 1-4 and Para.[0040]) and wherein the hazard detection evaluation unit is further connected to the virtual entry vehicle grid for receiving captured sensor data (Para.[0042], lines 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Queen with the virtual grid as taught within Hoeck to provide additional safety measures for passenger safety to prevent injuries with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16: Queen further teaches the ropeway system according to claim 15, wherein the hazard detection evaluation unit is configured to determine, by evaluating successive image data from the cameras, a fall of a person in the image data in the direct entry area, on the basis of which the emergency slowdown or emergency stop signal is generated (Para.[0004] and Para.[0032], lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 17: Queen further teaches the ropeway system according to claim 15, further comprising an operator display device, wherein images from the camera(s) are transmitted from the camera(s) to the operator display device via a signal transmitter (202; Fig.2 and Para.[0026], lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 18: Queen further teaches the ropeway system according to claim 17, wherein the operator display device (202; Fig.2) comprises one or more elements from the group: an operator's smartphone with a control app for the ropeway system, and a screen and intercom in a duty room of the ropeway system with control elements for the ropeway system (Para.[0025], lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 19: Queen further teaches the ropeway system according to claim 15, wherein the entry station is a valley station and the exit station is a mountain station (Para.[0081], lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 20: Queen further teaches the ropeway system according to claim 15, wherein the vehicles of the ropeway system are from the group comprising chairs (Figs. 3,4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the dependent claim 7. More specifically, the prior fails to teach wherein the pre-exit area has a surface which is lower than the exit area and is provided with at least one pressure plate, which is connected to the exit edge by means of an inclined sliding surface as claimed within claim 7. It would require an improper level of hindsight to combine these features with the prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights