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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/14/22, 08/12/22, 05/25/23, and 10/12/23 are being considered by the examiner.
SUMMARY
Entry of amendments to claims 16, 18–21, 25–29 is acknowledged.
The §102(a)(1) rejection of claims 16–19 over Ref. 1 is withdrawn in view of the newly-added positional limitations (“at the support arm”; “below the running device … extends substantially horizontally …”). The prior §112(b) indefiniteness of “form fit” is withdrawn. Under BRI consistent with the specification and usage in the mechanical arts (form-lock), “form fit” is sufficiently definite for examination. Applicant’s broader gloss (“includes frictional engagement”) is not adopted; the Office applies the ordinary form-lock meaning.
The §112(b) issues for claims 27–29 are withdrawn.
Because the amendments add narrowing structural features to independent claim 16 that were not in the previous claims, a revised obviousness analysis is provided. The Office continues to rely on the same prior art set (Refs. 1–3). See MPEP §706.07(a).
LIST OF REFERENCES (CITED)
KR 20140141827 (“Ref. 1”)
JP 2004314740 (“Ref. 2”)
DE 102017219219 (“Ref. 3”)
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.
REVISED REJECTIONS
Claims 16–29 — Rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Ref. 1 (KR 20140141827) in view of Ref. 2 (JP 2004314740) and Ref. 3 (DE 102017219219).
Claim 16 (independent)
Claim text (abridged to key limitations): A running gear … comprising: (i) a running gear frame coupled/coupleable to a cabin via a support arm; (ii) at least one running wheel … for traveling on a running device; (iii) a guide unit coupled via a swivelable cantilever; the guide unit including a guide element for form-fit with one of two guide devices and an actuator element for form-fit with one of two actuator devices rigidly coupled to the running device for deflection of the running device; and (iv) at least one control element at the support arm configured to swivel the cantilever together with the guide unit to select the travel path; (v) wherein the swivel cantilever is arranged below the running device at the support arm and extends substantially horizontally toward one of the two guide devices.
Mapping / Analysis:
Elements (ii)–(iii): Ref. 1 discloses a running gear with wheels traveling on a running rail (running device), and a pivoting (“seesaw”) roller assembly (guide unit) that form-fits a guide rail and an actuator rail and thereby deflects a separate subsection of the running device at the branch (see Ref. 1, e.g., description of branch roller unit 150; guide rails; actuator rails; and deflectable subsection 242 rigidly coupled for deflection). This teaches the two guide devices and two actuator devices and the form-fit interactions that effect deflection.
Element (i): Ref. 3 discloses a gondola 106 with a cabin 112 coupled to the running gear via a support arm 108 (see Ref. 3, system overview of gondola on suspension rail with support arm).
“Swivelable cantilever that extends substantially horizontally toward the guide”: Ref. 2 teaches a swivelable roller support rod/arm (e.g., drive rod / parallel-link variants) that rotates to bring rollers into engagement with side direction control guides at a branch. The roller arm/rod is transverse/horizontal with rollers at its end(s), i.e., it extends substantially horizontally toward a side guide to be engaged (see Ref. 2, drive rod 26/26A/26B variants and the passages describing moving the rod so that the rollers are guided by guides on the side of the track). Under BRI, a “swivelable cantilever” reads on a swivelable lever/arm projecting from the chassis to carry the guide rollers; Ref. 2’s rod/arms (including the θ-rotation embodiments) are such structures.
“Arranged below the running device at the support arm”: In Ref. 3, the running gear (chassis) and its attachments are below the suspension rail (running device), with the support arm 108 connecting the running gear to the cabin. Locating the swivelable guide arm on the running gear at (i.e., mounted on or integral with the structure at) the support arm region is a predictable placement (see Motivation below) that achieves the same function (swiveling a guide arm to engage a side guide).
“Control element at the support arm configured to swivel the cantilever”: Both Ref. 1 (drive 162/164 swiveling the seesaw roller arm) and Ref. 2 (drive units 27/27A/27B actuating the swivel rod/link) teach the control element that swivels the roller-carrying arm. Relocating that known actuator to the support arm region (Ref. 3) to drive the same swivelable arm is a routine packaging choice that does not change function—see Motivation below.
Motivation to combine (specific to claim 16): A POSITA faced with integrating a gondola-style support arm (Ref. 3) into a passive-switch running gear (Ref. 1) and a swivelable horizontal guide arm (Ref. 2) would locate the swivel actuator and pivot structure at or on the support arm region for at least these reasons: (1) Structural stiffness & packaging—the support arm is the principal load path between cabin and running gear; placing the pivot/actuator there shortens the load path and improves durability; (2) Clearance to the running device—mounting the rod/arm below the rail (as in Ref. 3’s gondola layout) and having it extend horizontally toward the side guide (as in Ref. 2) avoids interference with the running wheels and the deflectable subsection (Ref. 1); (3) Serviceability & wiring—co-locating the actuator at the support arm simplifies harnessing to the cabin controller (Ref. 3) and reduces cable lengths. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results”). No unexpected result is alleged. The combination therefore yields the claimed arrangement with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 17 (dependent)
Claim text (key add-on): the guide unit includes at least one pair of rollers, including a guide roller and an actuator roller with a shared rotational axis.
Mapping / Analysis: Ref. 1 teaches a guide unit that simultaneously engages a guide rail and an actuator rail, i.e., two cooperating rollers that together enforce the form-fit relationship to deflect the subsection. Ref. 2 teaches roller units that are “composed of two rollers … arranged along the traveling direction” on a common shaft (shared axis) in its alternative embodiments (e.g., rollers arranged on the same rod/axis to engage the corresponding guide profile). Using a co-axial pair to implement Ref. 1’s simultaneous guide/actuator engagement is a straightforward design choice that Ref. 2 expressly teaches.
Motivation (claim 17): Co-axial pairing constrains relative motion between “guide” and “actuator” contact points, enforcing precise alignment and reducing jam risk—exactly the benefit Ref. 1 seeks with the paired engagements. Adopting Ref. 2’s shared-axis arrangement to implement Ref. 1’s dual engagement is an obvious optimization (predictable mechanical improvement).
Claim 18 (dependent)
Claim text (key add-on): the guide and actuator elements are stationarily situated relative to one another at the cantilever or the cantilever with the guide unit is preceding the running wheel in the travel direction.
Mapping / Analysis: Ref. 1’s roller unit is mounted to the seesaw base such that the two rollers move together (stationary relative arrangement). Both Ref. 1 and Ref. 2 place the guide/roller unit upstream of the main running wheels so that the switch is set before the running wheels reach the branch. This matches the claim.
Motivation (claim 18): Keeping the two contact points stationary relative on the same arm is the standard way to ensure synchronized engagement; placing the assembly preceding the running wheels is necessary for setting the switch ahead of wheel arrival. These are conventional, predictable arrangements.
Claim 19 (dependent)
Claim text (key add-on): a drive unit configured to drive the running wheel or the guide unit.
Mapping / Analysis: Ref. 1 discloses a driving motor for the running wheels and a separate drive (162/164) for the guide/roller unit; Ref. 2 likewise discloses an actuator that drives the swivel rod/link. Either or both satisfy the “and/or” alternative in claim 19’s body.
Motivation (claim 19): Driving the wheels and actuating the guide arm are fundamental to the system’s function; both drives are explicitly present in the art. No additional motivation is required.
Note: Claims 20–26 either depend from or explicitly incorporate the running-gear features of amended claim 16 (see the “as recited in claim 16” language). For those aspects, the analysis and motivation provided for claim 16 apply here. The additional “support arrangement”/system features are taught or suggested by Ref. 1 and Ref. 2 as follows.
Claim 20 (independent to the support arrangement)
Claim text (key limitations): a running device; two guide devices and two actuator devices for form-fit with the guide unit; each actuator device rigidly coupled to the running device to deflect the running device.
Mapping / Analysis: Ref. 1 discloses exactly this passive switch architecture: a running device (110/117), paired guide rails and paired actuator rails, with the actuator rails rigidly coupled to a deflectable subsection 242 of the running device; form-fit between the gondola’s guide rollers and the rails produces deflection. Ref. 2 corroborates the use of paired guides in a branching region to direct a trolley; its guidance geometry aligns with Ref. 1’s.
Motivation (claim 20): Ref. 1 already teaches the claimed support arrangement. Incorporating the guide-rod implementation of Ref. 2 into Ref. 1’s paired-rail passive switch is an obvious way to implement the engagement geometry.
Claim 21 (dependent)
Claim text: running device situated between two pairs, each pair comprising a guide device and an actuator device in the area of at least one branch point.
Mapping / Analysis: Ref. 1’s branch region is arranged with two pairs (left/right) of rails straddling the running path, with each pair consisting of a guide rail and a companion actuator rail that together determine the branch state; the running path lies between them. Ref. 2 likewise shows left/right paired guide structures about the travel path.
Motivation (claim 21): Symmetrical left/right paired structures around a running path are standard in overhead switch design to handle either branch.
Claim 22 (dependent)
Claim text: each pair includes a threading section (for each travel direction) configured to thread the guide unit into the pair.
Mapping / Analysis: Ref. 1 expressly uses “insertion/entry geometry” (threading sections) to capture the roller unit into the left or right pair as the gondola approaches a branch. Ref. 2 likewise shows lead-in sections guiding the roller toward the side guide.
Motivation (claim 22): Providing flared threading/lead-in geometry at switch entries is conventional to avoid jamming and ensure capture.
Claim 23 (dependent)
Claim text: the running device includes a separate deflectable subsection coupled to the actuator devices in the branch area.
Mapping / Analysis: Ref. 1 lists this feature explicitly (subsection 242).
Motivation (claim 23): N/A beyond Ref. 1’s explicit teaching.
Claim 24 (dependent)
Claim text: the subsection is selectively deflectable by whichever actuator device is in form-fit with the guide unit.
Mapping / Analysis: Ref. 1 teaches exactly that operation: whichever actuator rail is engaged causes the subsection to stay or deflect, yielding straight or diverge.
Motivation (claim 24): N/A beyond Ref. 1’s explicit teaching.
Claim 25 (independent to the gondola)
Claim text (incorporates claim 16): a gondola comprising the running gear as recited in claim 16 and a cabin coupled via the support arm.
Mapping / Analysis: The running-gear aspects are obvious for the reasons given for claim 16 (Refs. 1–3). Ref. 3 supplies the gondola+cabin+support arm architecture.
Motivation (claim 25): Using the claim-16 running gear in a gondola is an obvious application because Ref. 3’s gondola relies on the same class of running-gear components (rollers, guide contacts, current collection, etc.) below a suspension rail.
Claim 26 (system)
Claim text: a gondola lift system including at least one gondola of claim 25 and a support arrangement as in claim 20.
Mapping / Analysis: This is an aggregation of claim-25’s gondola (obvious per above) and claim-20’s support arrangement (taught by Ref. 1). Integrating the two is exactly what Ref. 3 shows in principle (complete gondola + suspension rail system), and Ref. 1 shows for the passive switch layout.
Motivation (claim 26): Combining the gondola and the support arrangement into a working system is routine system integration in this art with predictable results.
Claim 27 (method)
Mapping / Analysis: Ref. 3 teaches reading a satellite navigation signal and/or a sensor/server control signal and using it to drive the gondola running gear (see Ref. 3 abstract and control description). The activation of the swivel actuator that sets the branch (Ref. 1/Ref. 2) is simply one of the running-gear actuations the control unit performs. Combining Ref. 3’s control method with Ref. 1/Ref. 2’s swivelable guide arm is a straightforward application of known control to a known actuator.
Motivation (claim 27): Autonomy and routing—Ref. 3 explicitly motivates using nav/sensor/server inputs to determine when to actuate drive/guide hardware. Applying that to the branch-selection actuator is an obvious implementation detail with predictable results.
Claim 28 (control unit)
Mapping / Analysis: Ref. 3 also discloses a control unit with processor, memory, and interfaces configured to read signals and generate control outputs to the drive/guide actuators. Interfacing that controller to the swivel actuator (Ref. 1/Ref. 2) to select branches is an obvious wiring/logic connection.
Motivation (claim 28): Same as claim 27; standard control architecture.
Claim 29 (program / memory)
Mapping / Analysis: Storing the control logic as a computer program on a non-transitory medium is a routine implementation of Ref. 3’s control scheme.
Motivation (claim 29): Software embodiment of known control logic—predictable and conventional.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
1) Anticipation over Ref. 1 (claims 16–19)
Applicant is correct that, as amended, claim 16 now recites (a) a control element “at the support arm” and (b) a swivel cantilever “arranged below the running device … and extend[ing] substantially horizontally”. Ref. 1 discloses a pivoting (“seesaw”) guide/actuator roller assembly and its drive on the running-gear frame within the rail envelope, but does not explicitly locate the drive “at the support arm.” Accordingly, the §102 rejection of claims 16–19 over Ref. 1 is withdrawn.
However, as explained below, those added features are obvious in view of Refs. 1–3.
2) “Ref. 2 and Ref. 3 do not cure” (claims 20–29)
Applicant contends Ref. 2 and Ref. 3 fail to disclose the newly-added positional features. As set out below, the combination of Ref. 1 (form-fit guide/actuator; deflectable subsection), Ref. 2 (swivelable roller arm/rod that extends horizontally toward the side guide; variants placing guides/rollers at selected upper/lower vertical positions), and Ref. 3 (a gondola with a support arm mounting the cab to the running gear) renders the amended limitations obvious. The law does not require a single reference to contain all limitations, nor does it forbid relocating a known actuator to a known structural member when doing so yields predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Conclusion
The §102 rejection of claims 16–19 over Ref. 1 is withdrawn, but those claims are now rejected under §103 over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and Ref. 3 for the reasons above.
Claims 20–26 remain rejected under §103 for the reasons above (with the analysis updated to incorporate the new claim-16 limitations).
Claims 27–29 are rejected under §103 (Refs. 1–3) and §112(b) (indefiniteness of “and/or” and duplications).
If Applicant believes interview would advance prosecution, I am available to discuss amendments that (i) clearly resolve the “and/or” issues, and (ii) recite any truly non-obvious structural cooperation (if any) between the support-arm-mounted actuator, the below-rail horizontal cantilever, and the paired guide/actuator rails beyond the well-known, predictable arrangements taught or suggested by Refs. 1–3. 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 JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Allen Shriver can be reached on (303) 297-4337. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613