DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 24, 26, 28-30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Fang et al. (US 10,059,569).
In regard to claim 14, Fang shows a method for automated monitoring of a travel operation of a passenger transport system 1100 with a monitoring system 1200. The monitoring system comprises a hazard analysis module 1220 and at least one motion-sensing module 1210. The at least one motion-sensing module 1210 is directed toward the passenger transport system and is configured to capture electronically processable real motion sequence recordings of situations which occur on the passenger transport system. See, for example, column 9, lines 55-65, describing preforming analysis on a motion trend of a foreground object when needed information cannot be made based on a single frame image. The multiple image frames taken in sequence in this circumstance form the real motion sequence recording required by the claim. This real motion sequence recording is received in the hazard analysis module 1220. These real motion sequence recordings have been captured by the at least one motion-sensing module 1210. Data of a digital double of the passenger transport system in the hazard analysis module is received by the background data acquisition module 1221 if the hazard analysis module 1220. This includes at least information relating to physical properties of the passenger transport system which are used to determine a visual appearance of the passenger transport system in a predetermined/normal motion state (see column 6, lines 35-40 describing data frames sensed when the monitoring area is in a normal state).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The foreground detection module 1222 of the hazard analysis module determines object information relating to dynamic objects on the passenger transport system by the hazard analysis module (see column 6, lines 40-45). This information is determined based on the data of the digital double received and the real motion sequence recordings (see column 6, lines 50-55 describing the background acquisition module providing a background model for a reference basis for comparison. This comparison is used by a foreground extraction module 1223 and a state judgement module 1224 of the hazard analysis module to determine hazard information relating to a current hazardous situation on the passenger transport system by the hazard analysis module based on an analysis of motions of the dynamic objects determined (see column 6, lines 55-65). A warning is output by the hazard analysis module 1220 based on the hazard information determined relating to the current hazardous situation.
In regard to the claim term “digital double”, it should be noted that while the applicant may act as may act as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the present application, the applicant discusses the term “digital double” on page 7, lines 15-30 of the specification in terms of what the term “can” mean, stating that the term “can be generally understood to mean a virtual representation of an actually existing object, as can be in the present case of the passenger transport system, which can represent the physical properties of the object as realistically as possible”. This does not amount to an explicit or definite definition of the claim term “digital double” and, even it did, it would not require that the “digital double” be capable of indicating where steps or plates of the step belt are currently located at any point in the operation of the passenger transport system as described in the current application. As such, the claim term is interpreted broadly within an ordinary meaning as used commonly in the art. The background data acquisition module 1221 of the hazard analysis module fits within a reasonably broad meaning of the term “digital double” because it is used to acquire a background model based on the appearance of the transport system during normal operation as required by the independent claim.
In regard to claim 24, a comparison of the motions of the dynamic objects may be determined with stored motion scenarios which represent potential hazardous situations in order to analyze the motions of the dynamic objects determined (see column 7, lines 30-45 discussion of non-self-learning bone map modeling).
In regard to claim 26 the current hazardous situation on the passenger transport system may be evaluated based on a comparison of the dynamic objects determined with various stored motion scenarios as described in the previous paragraph. This evaluation may be used to output a warning depending on the evaluation of the hazardous situation (see column 5, lines 25-30).
In regard to claim 28, it may be seen that the above described method is carried out by a monitoring system 1200/1210 for monitoring travel operation of a passenger transport system. The monitoring system includes comprises a hazard analysis module 1200 which is configured to receive data from a motion-sensing module 1210 and from a database module 1221. The motion-sensing module 1210 is directed toward the passenger transport system and is configured to capture electronically processable real motion sequence recordings of situations which occur on the passenger transport system. Data of a digital double of the passenger transport system are stored in the database module 1221. The data comprise at least information relating to physical properties of the passenger transport system which are used to determine a visual appearance of the passenger transport system in a predetermined motion state. The hazard analysis module 1220 is configured to carry out or control the method of claim 14 as described above.
In regard to claim 29, the above described monitoring system is provided with a passenger transport system 1100 that includes a transport belt (see figure 1), a drive for driving the transport belt (not shown but a drive would be inherent), a controller for controlling the drive (not shown, but some control would be inherent), and the monitoring system of claim 28 as described in the previous paragraph. The motion-sensing module 1210 is directed at least toward partial regions of the transport belt (see figure 1).
In regard to claims 30, it should be noted that a computer program product, comprising machine-readable program instructions which, when executed on a programmable device may be used to cause the above described device to carry out or control the method of claim (see column 7, lines 25-40).
In regard to claim 33, it should be noted that the above described computer program product would inherently include a computer-readable medium with the above computer program product stored thereon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-23, 25, 27, and 31-32 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A DEUBLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday flex schedule.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/MARK A DEUBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651