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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 8-11 are currently pending. Claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 12 were canceled per Applicant. Claims 1, 3, 6 and 8-11 remain rejected despite Applicant’s arguments filed 11/05/2025. Amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection presented within this Office action. Previous drawing objections and 112(a) rejections are withdrawn. Claims contain outstanding 112(b) rejections. Response to Applicant arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Within claim 1, lines 13 and 15: “removable coupling coupling means” should be “removable coupling means” as previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Specifically, the claim limitations “cable transport means”, “removable hooking means”, “removable coupling means”, “movement means”, “guidance means”, and “stiff shifting means” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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, 3, 6 and 8-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the reflexive pronoun “the same” with line 14. Please replace “the same” with the noun to which it refers.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "intended to" within line 21 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 8 recites the limitations "said first operating configuration” and “said second operating configuration" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 6 and 9-11 are rejected due to their dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Erharter et al. (US 20210031811 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Erharter discloses a system for the transportation of loads and/or persons at height comprising at least one car defining at least one cab for the transportation of loads and/or persons (1; Fig.1), the system comprising: -cable transport means of said car (2; Fig.1); -removable hooking means of said car to said cable transport means (15,7; Fig.1); - movement means of said car onto a ground (8,5; Fig.1); and -removeable coupling means of said car to said movement means onto the ground (Fig.7), wherein said movement means onto the ground comprise at least one movable support coupleable to said car in a removable manner by means of said removable coupling coupling means and adapted to hold said car during movement of the same onto the ground (Fig.8); and wherein said removable coupling coupling means comprise at least a first coupling portion associated with said movable support and a second coupling portion associated with said car and coupleable to said first coupling portion in a removable manner (Fig.7); wherein: -said movable support comprises a supporting surface arranged, in use, substantially horizontal to the ground (top of seats 16; Fig.8), intended to receive said car and on which said first coupling portion is formed (opening of 16; Fig.8); and -said car comprises a bottom wall (10; Fig.7) on which said second coupling portion is formed (14; Fig.7), wherein when said bottom wall is resting on said supporting surface (Fig.5), said first coupling portion and said second coupling portion are coupled to secure said car and said movable support to each other so as to allow the movement of the car itself onto the ground (Figs.2-4).
Regarding claim 3: Erharter further discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein said hooking means (15,7; Fig.1) comprise: - at least one supporting arm (15; Fig.4) secured to said cable transport means (7; Fig.4) and provided with at least a first hooking portion (14; Fig.6); and - at least a second hooking portion associated with said car and coupleable to said first hooking portion in a removable manner (21; Fig.6).
Regarding claim 6: Erharter further discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein said movable support comprises at least one motor-driven assembly for the movement of the support onto the ground (Para.[0044], lines 10-14).
Regarding claim 8: Erharter further discloses the system according to claim 6, further comprising: at least one exchange station located between said movement means onto the ground and said transport means at height and defining at least one point of departure, at which said car is moved from said first operating configuration to said second operating configuration, and at least one point of arrival, at which said car is moved from said second operating configuration to said first operating configuration (Fig.1 and Para.[0025]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 9: Erharter further discloses the system according to claim 8, wherein said movement means comprise at least one of either:- guidance means for guiding said movable support (8; Fig.8) along at least one predetermined route (5,25; Fig.8) and provided with at least one way of arrival to said point of departure and at least one way of departure from said point of arrival (Fig.1 and Para.[0040], lines 8-17 and Para.[0041], lines 30-35); or - stiff shifting means of said movable support between said point of departure and said point of arrival along a shifting direction (apparent from Fig.1).
Regarding claim 10: Erharter further discloses the system according to claim 9, wherein said way of arrival and said way of departure extend substantially parallel to each other along respective directions of guidance of said movable support arranged substantially orthogonal with respect to said shifting direction (apparent from Fig.1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erharter in view of Wesener (US 3823673 A).
Regarding claim 11: Erharter teaches a system, wherein said movement means (8,5; Fig.1) travels along a predetermined route (5; Fig.1) including the moveable support (8; Fig.1) and said car (6; Fig.1). Erharter does not teach at least one power supply line configured to electrically supply at least one of either said moveable support or said car or at least one connecting element positioned, in use, in sliding contact with said power supply line.
However, Wesener teaches at least one power supply line (3; Fig.1) configured to electrically supply a moving car (Fig.1) and at least one connecting element (S1,S2; Fig.1) positioned, in use, in sliding contact with said power supply line (3; Fig.1). 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 Erharter with the sliding power system of Wesener to supply power to the moving passenger cars for powering electric appliances or charging the electrical supply of the car with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant arguments regarding previous drawing objections and 112(a) rejection, Examiner agrees that one skilled in the art is able to make and use the invention as claimed; therefore, the previous drawing objections and 112(a) rejections are withdrawn.
Previous 112(b) rejections have been overcome by claim amendments, with new 112(b) rejections present.
Regarding Applicant arguments regarding amended limitations adding features not disclosed or taught by Erharter et al. (US 20200385029 A1), Examiner agrees. See new corresponding 102 and 103 rejections above in view of Erharter et al. (US 20210031811 A1).
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 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