DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 07/09/2026.
In the filed response dated 06/18/2026, claims 1, 2, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 23 have been amended, where claims 1, 13, and 23 are independent claims. Further, claims 7, 14, and 24 have been canceled, with new claims 26-37 being added, where claims 26 and 36 are independent.
Accordingly, Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-23, and 25-37 have been examined and are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/09/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 08/21/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 12-14, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the prior at rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-23, and 25-35 have therefore been withdrawn and are in condition for allowance with the incorporation of the allowable subject matter as noted. However, upon further consideration of Claims 36-37, the examiner finds that they can be rejected for the reasons elaborated on below which include new prior art Bojarski (WO 2020/119514 A1), from the IDS dated 08/21/2026, and Todd (WO 2015/088795 A1). Please see examiner’s responses below.
3. After considering Bojarski, the examiner finds that although the teachings do not address ski jumps/ramps as in Stewart, they do show how displayed information on screens located along ski slopes can be wirelessly communicated to a user/skier (e.g. bottom of pg. 6). Further, Bojarski also shows how captured images from cameras/sensors mounted along a ski slope can be transmitted to “others” (fig. 3). For these reasons, Bojarski’s teachings are deemed relevant. As to Todd, Todd’s teachings are not related to skiing, as in Stewart and Bojarski, however they are deemed relevant, since a plurality of sensors can be arranged along a race track in order to monitor an athlete(s) at various stages during a sporting event which can include competitions, etc. (see fig. 2 and pg. 4, 3rd paragraph). Applying this to different sporting events would therefore be considered within the level of skill in the art. For these reasons, which are further elaborated on in the office action below, Bojarski and Todd therefore reasonably address “a wireless communication facility configured to transmit, to a wireless personal device carried by the skier, at least some of the indications at said plural displays; and a facility configured to store and selectively transmit to the wireless personal device carried by the skier and/or others using the wireless communication facility, at least one of still images, video images and still and video images taken with said first or second sensor.”. The examiner therefore respectfully submits that Stewart, Pouille, Bojarski, and Todd reasonably teach and/or suggest under 35 U.S.C. 103, either alone or in combination, all of the disclosed features of claims 36 and 37, given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Please see office action below for details.
4. Examiner would also like to note the work of Doucette US 201/0174091 A1 which describes tracking a participant using multiple cameras during sporting events such as downhill skiing (e.g. 0002-0003). It appears 0042-0043 also provide support for captured video to be streamed to a user’s device. Although Doucette is not relied on for the current office action, the teachings are deemed relevant. Please see PTO 892.
5. Applicant’s remarks regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are acknowledged. As such, the rejections are withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s remarks and amendments regarding the claim objections are also acknowledged. As such, the objections are withdrawn.
7. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
8. Accordingly, Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-23, and 25-37 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
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 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al.US 2011/0267189 A1, in view of Pouille US 2018/0224539 A1, in further view of Bojarski et al. WO 2020119514 A1 (from 08/21/2026 IDS, and in further view of Todd M. WO 2015/088795 A1, hereinafter referred to as Stewart, Pouille, Bojarski, and Todd, respectively.
Regarding claim 36. (New) Stewart teaches and/or suggests “A system enhancing safety in a ski jump feature that includes a run comprising, in a downstream sequence [Please refer to fig. 1 depicting a side view of an illustrative jump area for a skier/rider (102)], a starting zone for a skier to start a run [Although Stewart does not explicitly identify a “starting zone” for rider 102 to start a run as shown in fig. 1, said rider must have been at rest before initiating the run], a downwardly sloping zone for the skier to build up speed [See fig. 1. Since a rider approaching a jump must be traveling at high speed in order to ideally land in the “landing area” (e.g. ¶0003), said rider must have been traveling along a downwardly sloping zone to build up the required speed. ¶0008 shows a rider’s speed must be within a desired range], a ramp zone from which the skier is to jump off [See jump/ramp as depicted in fig. 1 and ¶0035], a flying zone over which the skier is to travel through the air [See rider 102 traveling through the air after departing the jump/ramp in fig. 1], a landing zone for the skier to land [Fig. 1 also illustrates a landing area for the rider to safely land after traveling through the air], and a zone for the skier to end the run [See ¶0035 with respect to fig. 1 which shows a run-out area that allows a rider to slow down or safely come to a stop], and the run further comprises a side area that is to a side of said flying zone [Any area adjacent to the run (fig. 1) that is off to the side of said run (i.e. is offset) can be construed as said “side area”. For e.g., this can correspond to the location of sensors, spectators, etc.], said system comprising; a portable housing mounted at said side area [The foregoing can be construed as a ‘mobile’ monitoring station that has a weatherproof housing (e.g. ¶0062 with respect to fig. 6) which can be positioned along a side area of said run for monitoring the rider speed etc. Also please refer to ¶0066], spaced from said run [Same citations as above], and supporting a plurality of sensors configured to monitor said run [See for e.g. e.g. ¶0030 and ¶0062. Given the BRI of a “portable housing…supporting a plurality of sensors”, Stewart’s weatherproof housing encloses components (e.g. power delivery, processing/analysis, etc.) for supporting a radar and camera, i.e. a plurality of sensors. To address a portable housing that includes a plurality of sensors, please refer to Pouille below] and further housing a computer operatively coupled to the sensors [See for e.g. ¶0064 regarding computer housing 612 (fig. 6) mounted in said weatherproof housing and coupled to the sensor(s).]; wherein said plurality of sensors and computer [Same citations as above] are configured to: individually detect the skier's speed in real time at each of multiple points in the run between the start zone and the end of the ramp zone using at least a first and second of the plurality sensors [Please refer to for e.g. ¶0076-¶0077 regarding monitoring a rider’s speed on an approach to a jump. As to covering more than one area, it appears Stewart’s ‘mobile’ monitoring station can be positioned via a surface positioning component that allows said station to be easily moved over the snow]; track weather conditions at the run using a third of the plurality of sensors [Although not explicit, Stewart discusses various weather conditions such as snow changes, poor visibility, icy landing area, and other such instances, that may trigger a caution status (e.g. ¶0038 and ¶0073). Alerting a rider to these types of conditions requires that they be detected, suggesting the presence of sensors.]; and detect the presence or absence of obstructions in said run using at least one of the first and second sensors [See fig. 9 (e.g. ¶0073-¶0074) with respect to performing obstruction monitoring for a landing area associated with a jump]; plural displays positioned to be visible by the skier at least upstream of said flying zone and driven by said computer based on input from said plurality of sensors [See fig. 1 with further support at for e.g. ¶0070, where light emitting outputs 616 (fig. 6) are driven to display jump speed safety status to a rider. Also note ¶0038-¶0039], to indicate to the skier: the presence or absence of dangerous conditions at the run [See for e.g. fig. 8 for sending safe and warning signals to the light emitting output for viewing by the rider]; in real time and at each of plural points in the run [Stewart’s ‘mobile’ monitoring station allows for positioning said station to various locations for monitoring a rider. See above citations with respect to fig. 6]: whether the skier's speed is within a selected range [Stewart discloses determining whether the rider’s speed is within the ‘safe/optimal speed range’ (e.g. ¶0032)]; if the skier's speed is outside the selected range: whether the speed is too fast or too slow relative to the selected range [Same as citations above with respect to falling below or exceeding a safe speed range.]; and whether the departure of the skier's speed from the selected range exceeds a threshold [Exceeding a threshold can be construed as determining the rider’s speed relative to a safe speed range. See citations above for support]; a wireless communication facility configured to transmit, to a wireless personal device carried by the skier, at least some of the indications at said plural displays [Although Stewart shows indications being displayed to the rider via a wireless network (e.g. ¶0058), Stewart does not appear to communicate those wirelessly to a rider’s personal device, however, it is believed such wireless communications would be within the level of skill in the art. To more explicitly show this, please see Bojarski below for support]; and a facility configured to store and selectively transmit to the wireless personal device carried by the skier and/or others using the wireless communication facility, at least one of still images, video images and still and video images taken with said first or second sensor” [Not found in Stewart. Please see Bojarski and Todd below for support]. Given the BRI of the aforementioned features, Stewart’s weatherproof housing encloses components for power delivery, processing, etc. for supporting a radar and camera (i.e. a “plurality of sensors”), however, said housing does not appear to contain said sensors. To address this interpretation of “supporting a plurality of sensors”, the work of Pouille from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on. [See for e.g. the abstract which describes a portable enclosure that contains various sensors such as a camera and a radar for performing speed monitoring. This is depicted in figs. 1A-1B] Although Pouille’s teachings relate to monitoring the speed of a vehicle (0006) rather than a speed of a rider as in Stewart, they are deemed relevant, since a plurality of sensors are contained within an enclosure that has protective outer materials that can shield the components from inclement weather (¶0018). As such, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stewart for network-based jump area monitoring, to include the portable enclosure of Pouille that contains a plurality of sensors to operate in various conditions, such as inclement weather, in order to monitor roadways and capture speed limit violations; hence, road safety can be maintained (e.g. ¶0001-¶0002). As to the limitations regarding wireless communications, although Stewart shows indications being displayed to the rider via a wireless network as illustrated above (e.g. ¶0058), Stewart (or Pouille) does not appear to communicate those wirelessly to a rider’s personal device. It is respectfully submitted that such transmissions would have been within the level of skill in the art where important information (for e.g. impending danger, health concerns, etc.) can be directly sent from one location to a user so that the user can respond appropriately. Nonetheless, in the spirit of compact prosecution, Bojarski from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “a wireless communication facility configured to transmit, to a wireless personal device carried by the skier, at least some of the indications at said plural displays” [Given the BRI of the limitation, see for e.g. pgs. 6 and 8. Based on captured images, quantity/traffic information is sent by a ski slope dispatch control center for display on screens along ski slopes (i.e. displays) and a user’s mobile terminal] Regarding the limitation “and a facility configured to store and selectively transmit to the wireless personal device carried by the skier and/or others using the wireless communication facility, at least one of still images, video images and still and video images taken with said first or second sensor”, Stewart and Pouille do not explicitly address this. However, Bojarski from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest this feature [See for e.g. fig. 3, where images captured by cameras/sensors that permanently monitor the ski slopes, can be communicated to a ski slope dispatch control center (i.e. “others”). Since said control center can communicate with users/skiers, this also seems to suggest that the images can also be sent to the users as shown. For more explicit support, please see Todd below] Although Bojarski’s teachings do not address ski jumps/ramps as in Stewart, they do show how displayed information on screens located along ski slopes can be wirelessly communicated to a user/skier. Further, Bojarski also shows how captured images from cameras/sensors mounted along a ski slope can be transmitted to others. For these reasons, Bojarski’s teachings are deemed relevant. As such, 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 teachings of Stewart for network-based jump area monitoring, along with Pouille’s portable enclosure, to add the wireless communications in Bojarski as above so as to provide better ski slope operation and management with higher occupancy rate and better safety (e.g. pg. 4 under “summary”). Although Bojarski’s fig. 3 suggests sending images to a user’s device, this is not explicit. As such, Todd from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned features [Todd shows that images captured by a camera(s) (e.g. camera 106c) positioned along a race track can be uploaded to an athletes wearable device (see bottom of pg. 16 and top of pg. 17 regarding image delivery to an athlete). Said device can for e.g. be a smartphone, etc. (see 2nd paragraph on pg. 8). Thus, the wireless transmissions of images is made possible via Todd] Although Todd’s teachings are not in the context of a skier going over a ski jump along a ski run, as in Stewart, they are deemed relevant, since a plurality of sensors can be arranged along a race track in order to monitor an athlete(s) at various stages during a sporting event which can include competitions, etc. (see fig. 2 and pg. 4, 3rd paragraph). As such, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stewart for network-based jump area monitoring along a ski run, along with Pouille’s portable enclosure, and Bojarski’s wireless communications for skiers, to include the communications network of Todd so as to help identify and time an athlete during a timed sporting event in which the athlete is participating (see “summary” on the bottom of page 1).
Regarding Claim 37, (New) Stewart, Pouille, Bojarski, and Todd teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 36, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Stewart, Pouille, and Bojarski do not address the features of claim 37, the work of Todd from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “in which said still and /or video images are configured to enhance education and /or increase enjoyment of said ski jump feature.” [Given the BRI of “enhance education and /or increase enjoyment”, Todd’s transmission of digital images to an athlete, captured during a race/competition, can be construed as a means for providing the athlete with information relative to their progress during the sporting event, such that they can learn how to improve their performance. Images can also be a source for enjoyment.] The motivation for combining Stewart, Pouille, Bojarski, and Todd has been discussed in connection with claim 36, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-23, and 25-35 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the art of record (notably Stewart, Pouille, Bojarski, and Todd) is deemed relevant for the reasons specified above, they do not reasonably teach and/or suggest, either alone or in combination, all of the disclosed features, particularly, “track weather conditions at the run using a third of the plurality of sensors configured to measure wind speed and direction at the run, and said computer responds to outputs from the third of the plurality of sensors to automatically adjust a selected speed range” (emphasis added) as recited for e.g. in claim 1 when considering the claim as a whole. The same also applies to independent claims 13, 23, and 26, which recite similar subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892. For e.g., see Szasz US 2020/0162665 A1 and Alexanderson et al. US 2019/0371289 A1, hereinafter referred to as Szasz and Alexanderson, respectively. Szasz describes object-tracking based slow-motion video capture of a skier performing a jump (e.g. 0006), while Alexanderson describes a skier wearing various sensors, including a camera during a down hill run which may involve obstacles like jumps (e.g. 0030).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights