DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 01/30/2026.
In the filed response, claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-14, 18-21, and 23 have been amended, where claims 1, 13, and 23 are independent claims.
Accordingly, Claims 1-25 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/30/2026. 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. 9-11, filed 01/30/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as well as
35 U.S.C. 112(b). Please see examiner’s responses below.
3. After carefully considering the claims in light of the amendments, particularly with respect to “a portable housing” and the clarifications made with respect to the “plurality of sensors” (e.g. “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”, as recited for e.g. in claim 1, the examiner believes the art of record, notably Stewart, remains relevant. Applicant argues Stewart does not describe that the camera and radar are supported by the same portable housing (pg. 10 of remarks). Applicant’s point is acknowledged, however, after careful consideration, the examiner finds the limitation “said system comprising; a portable housing mounted at said side area, spaced from said run, and supporting a plurality of sensors configured to monitor said run” as recited in claim 1, can be interpreted in two ways given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). For the reasons discussed below, the examiner respectfully submits Stewart’s teachings remain relevant.
To more clearly address a portable housing containing a plurality of sensors, new prior art Pouille US 2018/0224539 A1 (PTO 892) is introduced, hereinafter referred to as Pouille. Here Pouille describes a portable enclosure that contains various sensors such as a camera and a radar for performing speed monitoring. This is depicted in for e.g. figs. 1A-1B. Although Pouille’s teachings relate to monitoring the speed of a vehicle (¶0006) rather than a speed of a skier/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). Thus for these and other reasons that are detailed in the office action below, the examiner respectfully submits Stewart, Pouille, and Nichols, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest under 35 U.S.C. 103 all of the disclosed features of the instant claims given their BRI.
4. As indicated above, the limitation “said system comprising; a portable housing mounted at said side area, spaced from said run, and supporting a plurality of sensors configured to monitor said run” can have two interpretations. A first interpretation is the portable housing provides an enclosure for a plurality of sensors (i.e. said sensors are included inside the housing), and a second interpretation is the portable housing includes components for supporting a plurality of sensors. Here the examiner relies on Stewart for the latter interpretation. In particular, Stewart’s weatherproof housing encloses components (e.g. power delivery, processing, etc.) for supporting a radar and camera, i.e. a plurality of sensors. See e.g. fig. 6 and corresponding text. Even though Stewart’s camera and radar do not appear to be included in the enclosure, the components inside the enclosure do provide a means for supporting these sensors. To address the first interpretation regarding a portable housing that contains a plurality of sensors, see new prior art Pouille. Please refer to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
5. 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.
6. Accordingly, Claims 1-25 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation on lines 13-14 “using at least a first and second of the plurality sensors” (emphasis added) appears as though it should read as “using at least a first and second of the plurality of sensors”. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
8. Claim 13 is objected to for similar reasons as claim 1 above with respect to “at least a first and second of the plurality sensors” (lines 15-16). It is believed this should read as “at least a first and second of the plurality sensors” . Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
9. Claim 1 is further objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “obstructions in said run” (emphasis added). It appears as though this should read as “obstructions on said run”. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
10. Claims 4, 5, and 13 are objected for similar reasons as claim 1 above, i.e. “obstructions in said run”. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
11. Claim 23 is also objected to for similar reasons as claim 1 above, however, in this case, the limitation reads “obstructions in the landing zone”. It is believed this should read as “obstructions on the landing zone”. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
12. Claim 23 is further objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “supporting by a housing that is position…” (emphasis added). It appears as though it should read as “supporting by a housing that is positioned…”. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
13. Claim 23 is further objected to because of the following informalities: the claim also recites “indications of the presence of absence of obstructions…” (emphasis added). It appears as though it should read as “indications of the presence or absence of obstructions…”. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
14. Claims 2-5, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: each recites the phrase “sensor configured” (e.g. line 1 of claim 2), however, it seems as though this should read “sensor is configured”. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
15. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the clam recites “further including a facility configured to store and selectively transmit to skiers and/or others still and /or video images taken with said first or second sensor.” (emphasis added), however, the phrase “and/or others still and /or video images” is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
16. 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 1-12 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 claim 1, claim 1 recites “a plurality of sensors” (line 9). Later the claim recites “using at least a first and second of the plurality of sensors” (lines 13-14) and “using a third of the plurality of sensors” (line 15). As claimed, the above limitation can be interpreted in a couple of ways. First, given the claim previously recited a total of three sensors (382, 336, and 390), it seems said “plurality of sensors” would include these same three sensors, where 382, 336, and 390 correspond to a camera, lidar, and anemometer, respectively (e.g. ¶0045 of the filed specification). In other words, the first, second, and third of the plurality of sensors can be understood to correspond with the three sensors above, i.e. there is a first sensor, a second sensor, and a third sensor of the plurality of sensors. However, the aforementioned limitation can also be interpreted to mean given a “plurality of sensors”, there can be more than one sensor corresponding to the first, second, and third of the plurality of sensors. For e.g., claim 1 discloses tracking “weather conditions at the run using a third of the plurality of sensors”. Later, claim 2 shows the third sensor includes an anemometer. However, the specification also discloses other sensors may be used such as, for example, measuring air and snow temperatures at the run (e.g. ¶0009). Hence, one can construe a third of the plurality of sensors to mean a group of sensors that are used for tracking weather conditions. In other words, unlike the first interpretation above, the total number of sensors can be more than three, and the first, second, and third of the plurality of sensors can correspond to for e.g. a group of sensors, i.e. a first group, a second group, and a third group of the plurality of sensors. For these reasons, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, the aforementioned limitations are unclear, making the metes and bounds of the claim difficult to fully ascertain.
Regarding claims 2-12, claims 2-12 all depend on claim 1 and therefore include all of its limitations. For the same reasons presented above, claims 2-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. 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 1, 3-6, 8-13, 17-23, and 25 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, and in further view of Nichols US 2017/0026504 A1, hereinafter referred to as Stewart, Pouille, and Nichols, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) 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 [This is found in ¶0032-¶0033. Also please note ¶0038-¶0039, where the rider falls below or exceeds a safe speed 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]; and 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. [Not found in Stewart. Please see Nichols 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). Further, 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, Nichols from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “and 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.” [Nichols describes biofeedback information in the form of auditory/vibration alarms that may be provided to a skier for improving stance control (e.g. ¶0083). Please refer to figs. 2A-2B which depict the wireless communication link between the controller and the sensors] Although Nichols does not relate to ski jumps as in Stewart, Nichols does show how signals can be communicated to the skier for relaying important information. Thus, Nichols is deemed relevant art. 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 with Pouille’s portable enclosure, to add the wireless communications in Nichols as above, so that a person, such as a skier, can help correct for bad posture which can lead to other health effects, and thus, overall wellness (¶0003).
Regarding Claim 3, (Currently Amended) Stewart, Pouille, and Nichols teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Stewart further teaches and/or suggests “in which the first or second sensor configured to individually detect the skier's speed at each of said multiple points [Stewart’s mobile monitoring station (fig. 6) can be equipped with a radar component in addition to a camera (¶0062). These can be used to detect a rider’s speed (¶0067)], comprises a camera system [Same as above] viewing at least the ramp zone [Said mobile monitoring station can monitor a rider from a plurality of locations along the ski run. Also please note fig. 1] and supplying said computer with real time images, and said computer is configured to estimate the skier's speed at each of said multiple points based at least in part on said images.” [Computer housing 612 is located on said mobile monitoring station (fig. 6 and ¶0064) and is coupled to the camera which suggests captured images can be locally processed to determine a rider’s speed. Additional processing may be performed via a network link (¶0065)]
Regarding Claim 4, (Currently Amended) Stewart, Pouille, and Nichols teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Stewart further teaches and/or suggests “in which the first or second sensor configured to detect the presence or absence of obstructions in said run [In light of Stewart’s mobile monitoring station (fig. 6) that can be equipped with a radar and a camera (¶0062), see fig. 8 regarding detecting obstructions] include a camera system viewing the landing zone and the flat zone [The camera on the mobile monitoring station can capture images at a plurality of locations along the run] and supplying images thereof to said computer, and said computer is configured to process said images to detect the presence of absence of obstructions at the landing zone and the flat zone.” [Computer housing 612 is located on said mobile monitoring station (fig. 6 and ¶0064) and is coupled to the camera which suggests captured images can be locally processed to determine a rider’s speed. Additional processing may be performed via a network link (¶0065)]
Regarding Claim 5, (Currently Amended) Stewart, Pouille, and Nichols teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Stewart further teaches and/or suggests “in which the first or second sensor sensors configured to detect the presence or absence of obstructions in said run include plural imaging devices viewing the run from plural, spaced-apart viewing points.” [The camera on the mobile monitoring station (fig. 6) can capture images at a plurality of locations along the run that can be used to detect obstructions in the monitoring area (fig. 8). Also, given the BRI of the limitation, Stewart can also monitor a rider’s speed via multiple cameras on successive monitoring stations (¶0029)]
Regarding Claim 6, (Original) Stewart, Pouille, and Nichols teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Both Stewart and Pouille however do not address the features of claim 6. Nichols on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is found to teach and/or suggest “in which said wireless facility configured to transmit to a wireless device carried by the skier is configured to cause the wireless device to issue audible and/or vibration indications conforming to at least some of the indications displayed at said plural displays.” [Nichols describes biofeedback information in the form of auditory/vibration alarms that may be provided to a skier for improving stance control (e.g. ¶0083). Please refer to figs. 2A-2B which depict the wireless communication link between the controller and the sensors] The motivation for combining Stewart, Pouille, and Nichols has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 8, (Currently Amended) Stewart, Pouille, and Nichols teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Stewart is further found to teach and/or suggest “further including a fail-safe display activated in case of a failure of displaying said indications to display a sign visible from the starting zone to the effect that the run is currently unsafe.” [Please refer to fig. 5 and for e.g. ¶0043]
Regarding Claim 9, (Currently Amended) Stewart, Pouille, and Nichols teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Stewart is further found to teach and/or suggest “further including a facility configured to store and selectively transmit to skiers and/or others still and /or video images taken with said first or second sensor.” [In ¶0030-¶0032, Stewart describes a speed safety analysis module running on the safety analysis station that can be a separate facility from the monitoring station. This can also be integral with said monitoring station. Since said module can analyze captured data, the data must be stored for processing. Analysis results can subsequently be transmitted to a light emitting output for display to the rider]
Regarding Claim 10, (Original) Stewart, Pouille, and Nichols teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 9, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Stewart is further found 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 the limitation, Stewart’s captured data allow for informing a rider of their speed and whether obstructions exist or not on the run. Such information can be understood as enhancing the rider’s knowledge of their motion and their surroundings. Also, if obstructions are absent and the speed is within the desired range, this will enable the rider to enjoy their run]
Regarding Claim 11, (Currently Amended) Stewart, Pouille, and Nichols teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Stewart is further found to teach and/or suggest “in which the first or second sensor sensors configured to individually detect the skier's speed at each of multiple points comprise comprises a Lidar, and said computer is configured to estimate the skier's speed at each of said multiple points based at least in part on input from said Lidar.” [Please refer to for e.g. figs. 1 and 3-5 and corresponding text for support. Although Stewart’s teachings use a camera and/or radar for performing speed detection (e.g. ¶0047 and ¶0051), substituting a Lidar or any other suitable sensor, would have been within the level of skill in the art for estimating the speed of an athlete to facilitate making informed decisions such as those presented in fig. 10]
Regarding Claim 12, (Original) Stewart, Pouille, and Nichols teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 11, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Stewart is further found to teach and/or suggest “in which said first or second sensors and computer are further configured to detect the skier's speed in real time continuously during at least part of the run between the start zone and the end of the ramp zone.” [Please refer to for e.g. ¶0029, ¶0034, and figs. 1, 3-5]
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 11.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 4. As to “downstream from said landing zone”, see for e.g. the run-out area in the monitoring area in Stewart’s fig. 1.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1. Please note Stewart’s fig. 1 as well as for e.g. ¶0034 and ¶0075.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claims 2, 7, 14-16, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. Stewart discloses a variety of weather conditions such as poor weather visibility, changes to snow, and others that could trigger a caution status to be sent to a rider (¶0038). Although the foregoing conditions can be affected by the wind, Stewart does not appear to teach and/or suggest “said computer responds to outputs from the anemometer to automatically adjust said selected speed range.” as recited in claim 2. In ¶0049, Stewart does disclose a user adjusting the lower and/or upper speed of the safe speed range, however, there is no indication this is done automatically in response to outputs from an anemometer or any other weather sensor. The same also applies to claims 7, 14, and 24. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
2. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, in which the sensors third sensor configured to track weather conditions at the run include an anemometer measuring wind speed and direction at the run, and said computer responds to outputs from the anemometer to automatically adjust said selected speed range.
7. (Original) The system of claim 1, in which said computer is further configured to receive empirical data regarding current run conditions derived by observations at the run at selected time intervals and to automatically adjust said selected speed range accordingly.
14. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 13, further including weather condition sensors at said run, and wherein said computer is configured to respond to inputs from said weather condition sensors to automatically adjust said selected speed range for greater safety of persons using the run.
15. (Original) The system of claim 14, in which said weather condition sensors include a sensor of wind strength and direction at the run.
16. (Original) The system of claim 14, in which said weather condition sensors include sensors both for air and for snow temperatures at the run.
24. (Original) The method of claim 23, further comprising sensing selected weather conditions at the run and automatically adjusting said speed range with said computer based on the sensed weather conditions.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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