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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/21/22 and 09/18/24 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
INDEFINITENESS — LACK OF ANTECEDENT BASIS FOR “THE SENSOR SIGNAL”
Amended claim 15 recites “wherein activation of the cableway drive or an increase of the drive speed is prevented by the control unit when the sensor signal corresponding to the open position of the safety barrier is received, and is only enabled by the control unit upon receipt of a sensor signal corresponding to the closed position of the safety barrier.”
However, claim 15 does not previously recite a sensor, a sensor signal, or generating/transmitting a sensor signal. Claim 15 merely recites that “an opening state of the safety barrier is monitored.” The later phrase “the sensor signal” therefore lacks antecedent basis and renders the scope unclear because it is uncertain what device generates the signal, what signal is being received, and whether the claimed method requires the same sensor/signal architecture recited in apparatus claim 1.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 15 to introduce the sensor signal before relying on it. For example, claim 15 could be amended to recite that “the opening state of the safety barrier is monitored by a sensor, the sensor transmitting a sensor signal corresponding to the opening state to the control unit,” before the newly added interlock limitation.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1 — US 5,099,223 (Safety device forming a safety gate for cable installations transporting skiers). Notable numerals: post 2; flexible crossbar 4; releasable small bar 15; electrical contacts 18; base plate 6 with spikes 7, 8; yoke/pin 9, 10; spring 17; conductive bush 31; contacts 32, 33; tension rod 27; spring 29.
REFERENCE 2 — EP 2 052 942 (Device/method for controlling and/or monitoring a barrier system with a pivotable barrier arm and remote controls). Notable numerals: barrier arm 25; support post 21; drive motor 30; rotation transmission member 31; energy storage 35; control module 36; switch 37; voltage supply 11; remote controls 51, 52, 53; relays K1–K4; switches K1.1, K1.2, K2.1, K2.2, K3.1, K4.1.
REFERENCE 3 — CN 109050539B (Platform door linkage control system for urban rail). Notable numerals: PSC controller 103; CI controller 201; first relay cabinet 104; interface cabinet 202; second relay cabinet 203; door opening relay 207; door closing relay 208; DCU controller 12; door motor 110; platform door status relay 106; reset relay 205; audible/visual alarms 115 and 16; timer 23; interlock release trigger module 17; manual switch 18; redundant network ports 14, 22.
REFERENCE 4 — EP 0 443 052 (Barrier for individual parking spaces with solar-powered DC drive and radio remote). Notable numerals: post 2; barrier arm 3; drive unit 5 with electric motor 18; accumulators 6; radio receiver in post 2 actuated by handheld transmitter; antenna rod 20 with holders 21; base plate 16; predetermined breaking point 15; solar cells 4.
REFERENCE 5 — US 2020/0014888 A1 (Camera plus evaluation module determining door open/closed state and transmitting a door-status signal to a controller). Notable elements: imaging assembly; evaluation module configured to detect door-open; controller receiving door-status signal.
REFERENCE 6 — CN 101105097 A (Platform screen door control using a camera and signal-processing evaluation to recognize door/scene state and generate control instructions). Notable elements: CMOS camera; signal processor/evaluation unit; controller instructions based on image recognition.
REFERENCE 7 — Doppelmayr “Information & Communications Technology (ICT)” brochure (ropeway CCTV with operator display units including Connect screens; cameras for stations/lines/towers; camera feeds integrated to operator displays). Notable elements: CCTV cameras; operator display unit; transmission to operation consoles.
REFERENCE 8 — Doppelmayr “Video Management System / Ropeway Operation Center (ROC)” product sheet (station-area CCTV images transmitted to a central ROC; auto-display of relevant camera views upon safety sensor activation). Notable elements: VMS; ROC displays; event-triggered camera pop-ups.
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.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, AND 8 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3.
Ref. 1 is relied upon for the cableway/cable-installation safety-gate environment, the openable safety barrier, the sensor/contact arrangement that detects opening or actuation of the safety barrier, and the control information used to shut down the cable installation.
Ref. 2 is relied upon for the remotely-operable actuating unit and remote-control reset of a barrier from an open/active position to a closed/passive position.
Ref. 3 is relied upon for the transportation-system interlock logic in which operation is inhibited when a door/barrier status does not satisfy the closed/locked safe condition and is permitted only upon receipt of closed/locked status information.
───────
A cableway station for at least one cableway in which station at least one openable safety barrier is provided, wherein a sensor for detecting an opening state of the at least one safety barrier is provided in the cableway station, said sensor transmitting a sensor signal to a control unit of a cableway drive as a function of the opening state, wherein the control unit controls the cableway drive as a function of the obtained sensor signal, wherein the control unit is provided to stop the cableway drive or to reduce a drive speed of the cableway drive when a sensor signal corresponding to an open position of the safety barrier is received, wherein activation of the cableway drive or an increase of the drive speed is prevented by the control unit when the sensor signal corresponding to the open position of the safety barrier is received, and is only enabled by the control unit upon receipt of a sensor signal corresponding to the closed position of the safety barrier, wherein the safety barrier has a remotely-operable actuating unit which can be controlled by means of a remote control unit in order to reset the safety barrier from the open position, in which the cableway drive is stopped or the drive speed is reduced, into a closed position, in which the cableway drive can be activated again or the drive speed can be increased again.
ANALYSIS
Ref. 1 discloses a safety device intended to form a safety gate for cable installations transporting people, including ski tows and chairlifts. Ref. 1 teaches a post 2 carrying a crossbar 4, with the crossbar 4 forming a safety gate that can be actuated by a moving body, such as a person or object, in a monitored passage associated with the cable installation. Ref. 1 therefore teaches or at least renders obvious a cableway/cable-installation station environment in which an openable safety barrier is provided.
Ref. 1 discloses the claimed “at least one openable safety barrier” through the safety gate structure including post 2, crossbar 4, releasable small bar 15, and retention member 14. When a person or object contacts the crossbar 4, the small bar 15 is released from the retention member 14. The release changes the state of the safety gate from its normal/armed/closed condition to an actuated/open/released condition.
Ref. 1 discloses a sensor for detecting the opening state of the safety barrier. In particular, Ref. 1 teaches that the small bar 15 is electrically conductive and that the retention member 14 has electrical contacts 18 in contact with the small bar 15 when the device is in its normal armed condition. When the small bar 15 is released, current no longer passes between the electrical contacts 18. The electrical contacts 18, in cooperation with the conductive small bar 15 and retention member 14, detect whether the safety gate is in the normal/closed/armed state or in the actuated/open/released state.
Ref. 1 also discloses an alternative embodiment in which sleeve 25, projecting part 24, conductive bush 31, and electrical contacts 32 and 33 provide the same type of state-detection arrangement. When sleeve 25 is coupled to projecting part 24, electrical continuity is present through conductive bush 31 and contacts 32, 33. When sleeve 25 is released or uncoupled, the electrical connection is interrupted. This further confirms that Ref. 1 teaches a sensor that detects the opening or released state of the safety barrier.
Ref. 1 discloses the claimed “sensor signal” because the change in electrical continuity at contacts 18, or alternatively at contacts 32 and 33, is electrical information corresponding to the state of the safety barrier. The claim does not require a digital signal, a particular protocol, a particular voltage waveform, or a particular communications bus. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the interrupted or restored electrical state at the contacts is a sensor signal corresponding to the opening state of the safety barrier.
Ref. 1 teaches that this electrical information is transmitted as control information to shut down the cable installation. Accordingly, Ref. 1 teaches transmitting a sensor signal as a function of the opening state to control operation of the cable installation. To the extent Ref. 1 does not expressly label the receiving device as a “control unit of a cableway drive,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to implement the receiving and shutdown function using a control unit for the cableway drive, because the purpose of the transmitted electrical information is to shut down the installation, and cable installations are conventionally stopped by controlling the drive that moves the cableway vehicles.
Ref. 1 teaches that the control information is used to cause the installation transporting skiers to be shut down. Stopping the installation corresponds to stopping the cableway drive. The claim recites that the control unit is provided “to stop the cableway drive or to reduce a drive speed.” Ref. 1 satisfies this alternative by teaching shutdown of the cable installation upon actuation of the safety gate.
Ref. 1 also teaches that, after actuation, the device must be returned to its armed condition by re-coupling the small bar 15 to the retention member 14, and, if necessary, returning the post 2 to its upright position. This teaches the general safety principle that the installation is not in its normal operating state until the safety gate is restored to its armed/closed condition.
Ref. 2 discloses a remotely-operable actuating unit for a barrier. Ref. 2 teaches a barrier arm 25 mounted on support post 21, a drive motor 30 for moving the barrier arm 25, a rotation transmission member 31 for transmitting movement from the drive motor 30 to the barrier arm 25, an energy storage 35, a control module 36, and switch 37 for controlling current flow to the drive motor 30. Ref. 2 further teaches remote controls 51, 52, and 53 for controlling switching states, including relays K1–K4 and switches K1.1, K1.2, K2.1, K2.2, K3.1, and K4.1, so that the barrier arm 25 can be moved between positions.
Ref. 2 therefore teaches the claimed feature that the safety barrier has a remotely-operable actuating unit controlled by a remote control unit. The actuating unit corresponds at least to drive motor 30 together with control module 36, switch 37, and associated switching components. The remote control unit corresponds to remote controls 51, 52, and 53. Ref. 2 teaches that the barrier arm 25 can be moved from an active/open position back to a passive/closed position by operation of the drive motor 30 under remote control. When applied to the safety gate of Ref. 1, Ref. 2 teaches resetting the safety barrier from the open/actuated position to the closed/armed position by remote control.
Ref. 3 discloses a passenger-transport platform door linkage control system in which the status of doors or barriers is detected and communicated to control components, and in which operation of the transport system is dependent on whether the relevant doors satisfy a closed/locked safety condition. Ref. 3 teaches door body travel switches 11 for indicating status information of platform unit doors, DCU controllers 12 for reading the status information, a PSC controller 13/103 receiving the status information, and a CI controller 21/201 receiving or acting on the status information. Ref. 3 further teaches that when the status information of any platform unit door does not meet the closed-and-locked condition, a parking instruction or emergency braking instruction is sent so that the train is controlled accordingly. Ref. 3 also teaches platform door status relay 106 and reset relay 205 associated with the closed/locked status information.
Ref. 3 therefore teaches the amended interlock limitation. In particular, Ref. 3 teaches that operation of a passenger-transport system is inhibited when the relevant door/barrier status does not indicate a closed/locked condition, and that operation is permitted only when the closed/locked state information is present. The claimed “activation of the cableway drive or an increase of the drive speed is prevented” when the open-position signal is present is the same safety-control principle as Ref. 3’s inhibition of train operation when the platform door state does not satisfy the closed-and-locked condition. The claimed “only enabled” upon receipt of a closed-position signal is likewise taught or suggested by Ref. 3’s reliance on closed/locked status information before allowing normal transport operation.
It would have been obvious to modify the cable-installation safety system of Ref. 1, as further modified by the remotely-operable actuating unit of Ref. 2, to include the closed-state interlock logic taught by Ref. 3. The resulting system would stop or reduce operation when the safety barrier is opened, prevent activation or speed increase while the open-position signal remains present, and enable activation or speed increase only upon receipt of a sensor signal corresponding to the closed/armed position.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ref. 1 and Ref. 2 because Ref. 1 teaches a cable-installation safety gate that shuts down the installation when actuated, while Ref. 2 teaches a known remotely-operable barrier actuator that allows a barrier to be reset without requiring a person to be physically present at the barrier. The combination would predictably reduce downtime, reduce the need for personnel to travel to the safety gate, and improve automated operation while preserving the safety function of the gate.
A person of ordinary skill would further have been motivated to incorporate the interlock logic of Ref. 3 into the modified Ref. 1/Ref. 2 cableway safety system. Ref. 3 teaches, in an analogous passenger-transport context, that operation should be inhibited when a door or barrier does not satisfy a closed/locked condition and should be permitted only when the closed/locked status is confirmed. This is directly applicable to a remotely reset cableway safety barrier because a remote reset command alone does not guarantee that the barrier actually reached the closed/armed position. Requiring receipt of a closed-position signal before enabling drive activation or speed increase predictably prevents unsafe restart while the safety barrier remains open, misaligned, unrearmed, or otherwise unsafe.
The proposed combination uses known elements according to their known functions. Ref. 1’s safety gate detects unsafe actuation and shuts down the cable installation. Ref. 2’s motorized remote actuator moves a barrier from an open/active condition to a closed/passive condition. Ref. 3’s interlock logic prevents transport operation unless a safe closed/locked status is confirmed. Combining these teachings yields the claimed cableway station with predictable results and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, amended claim 1 remains unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and in further view of Ref. 3.
───────
The cableway station according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured, after the remote reset of the safety barrier from the open position into the closed position by the actuating unit, to automatically activate the cableway drive again or to increase the drive speed again when a sensor signal corresponding to the closed position is received.
ANALYSIS — REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Reference 1 already ties installation operation to the continuity state at contacts 18. Reference 2 provides position sensing and switch logic in control module 36, 37 that changes state when the barrier reaches the target position (e.g., the circuit at 5B and 6B shows relays returning to a “stop” state once the active position P2 or passive position P1 is reached). It would have been straightforward for a skilled control engineer to configure the ropeway control such that, upon receiving a sensor signal indicating the gate has returned to “closed,” the system automatically re-enables the drive or increases speed in accordance with the same interlock logic, thereby eliminating an extra manual start step. This is a conventional interlock pattern used across safety systems.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 2
Automating restart upon verified closure reduces operator workload and minimizes downtime while preserving safety. Reference 2 teaches state-dependent switching based on sensor-detected positions, which naturally extends to triggering state transitions (e.g., from “stop” to “run”) when the “closed” state is sensed. Implementing such auto-restart interlock behavior in the ropeway controller is a routine optimization producing predictable results that a skilled artisan would have adopted.
───────
The cableway station according to claim 1, wherein the actuating unit of the safety barrier can be controlled wirelessly and/or by wire via at least one stationary and/or portable remote control unit, wherein preferably at least one stationary and/or portable remote control unit is arranged in the cableway station, preferably in an operation room, and/or outside the cableway station, preferably in a central operation room for several cableway stations.
ANALYSIS — REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Reference 2 expressly teaches remote control units 51, 52, 53 commanding the actuating unit (motor 30 via control module 36 and switches 37). These remote controls are implemented as control electronics connected by lines and readily accommodate wired or wireless signaling. Reference 2’s remote architecture is agnostic to whether the remote unit is stationary or portable. Integrating such remote control into a ropeway station fits the “operation room” placement. Reference 2’s disclosure of remote control over barriers also lends itself to centralized supervision, and placing a stationary remote in an operation room or a central operation room is a straightforward deployment choice in transport installations.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 4
Selecting wired or wireless links and locating stationary or portable remotes in the station operation room or a central room are obvious configuration choices driven by site layout and operations practices. Using remote control architecture like 51–53 from Reference 2 across multiple gates or stations is a predictable extension to centralize operations and reduce staffing, a goal already recognized in automated transport control.
───────
The cableway station according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is connected to the control unit in a wireless or wired manner.
ANALYSIS — REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Reference 1 shows a wired connection of the sensor function (contacts 18) to the installation control. Reference 2’s control module 36 with remote controls also demonstrates both signal wiring and the design context in which wireless or wired telemetry may be used for remote command and status. It would have been routine to implement either wired or wireless connection between the gate’s position sensor and the control unit depending on installation constraints.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 5
Choosing between wired and wireless signal transmission from a sensor to a controller is a routine engineering option. Both references show signal interfacing to controllers; adopting either physical layer to meet site requirements is an obvious design choice producing predictable results.
───────
The cableway station according to claim 1, wherein a mechanical contact switch, inductive sensor, capacitive sensor, light barrier, laser sensor, magnetic sensor, or ultrasonic sensor arranged in the region of the safety barrier is provided as the sensor.
ANALYSIS — REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
Reference 1 uses electrical contacts 18 at the retention member to indicate the gate’s “open” event. These contacts are a mechanical contact switch inherently arranged in the region of the safety barrier (at the coupling between the small bar 15 and the post 2). Reference 2 recognizes the use of position-detecting sensors as well. Thus, the recited sensor choice is satisfied by the mechanical contact switch taught in Reference 1.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 8
Selecting from among commonplace industrial sensors (mechanical contact, inductive, capacitive, photoelectric, magnetic, ultrasonic) to detect barrier state is a routine matter based on environment and reliability targets. Reference 1 already uses a contact arrangement; retaining or substituting equivalent sensor modalities would have been obvious to achieve the same detection function.
───────
CLAIM 3 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND IN FURTHER VIEW OF REFERENCE 3.
───────
The cableway station according to claim 1, wherein an alarm unit is provided in the cableway station and/or outside the cableway station in order to trigger a preferably visual and/or acoustic alarm, when the open position of the safety barrier is detected by the sensor.
ANALYSIS — REFERENCES 1 + 2 + 3
Reference 1 provides the sensor event (contacts 18 open when bar 4 is forced) that stops the installation. Reference 2 provides remotely controlled barrier actuation. Reference 3 teaches the use of audible and visual alarm devices 115 and 16 connected to the platform door controller to announce open/close events and door state to personnel. Applying Reference 3’s audible/visual alarm practice to the ropeway station safety gate of References 1 and 2 to announce a gate-open event is a straightforward substitution of known annunciation in an analogous passenger-transport station context.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 3
Adding audible/visual alarms to alert staff and riders to a safety gate actuation is an expected safety measure that improves situational awareness and response time, as shown in Reference 3 for platform doors. A skilled artisan would have implemented the same alarm behavior on a ropeway station gate, driven by the same gate-open sensor signal, to achieve predictable safety and operational benefits.
───────
CLAIM 15 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2.
───────
A method for operating at least one cableway with at least one cableway station in which an openable safety barrier is arranged, wherein an opening state of the safety barrier is monitored, wherein a cableway drive of the at least one cableway is controlled by a control unit as a function of the opening state, wherein the cableway drive is stopped by the control unit or a drive speed of the cableway drive is reduced if the safety barrier is moved from a closed position into an open position, wherein the safety barrier, by means of a remote control unit, is reset from the open position, in which the cableway drive is stopped or the drive speed is reduced, into the closed position, in which the cableway drive can be activated again or the drive speed can be increased again.
ANALYSIS — REFERENCES 1 + 2
Monitoring opening state and controlling the cableway drive as a function of the opening state; stopping or reducing speed when moved open: Reference 1 discloses exactly this control: the gate’s release opens contacts 18 and the installation is shut down. This is the method step of monitoring the state and commanding stop on an open event.
Resetting the barrier from open to closed by a remote control unit; subsequently allowing the drive to be activated or speed increased: Reference 2 teaches remotely commanding motor 30 with remote controls 51–53 (via control module 36, switches 37) to move barrier arm 25 back to its closed position. Combining this with Reference 1’s stop interlock gives the recited remote reset followed by restoring operation in the closed state.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 15
The same motivation as for claim 1 applies to the method: remote re-closing of the safety barrier and automatic resumption of normal operation reduce manual interventions, shorten disruptions, and are an expected automation improvement when integrating motorized barriers into safety interlock systems.
───────
CLAIM 16 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND IN FURTHER VIEW OF REFERENCE 3.
───────
The method according to claim 15, wherein the cableway drive is automatically re-activated by the control unit, or the drive speed of the cableway drive is increased again, when the safety barrier has been reset into the closed position by means of the remote control unit.
ANALYSIS — REFERENCES 1 + 2 + 3
Reference 1 provides the stop interlock on open; Reference 2 provides remote re-closing and position detection; Reference 3 shows state-dependent interlocks in which the controller resumes permissible operations when doors are closed and locked, including reset relays 205 and command relays 207/208. Applying this known control pattern to ropeway drive after the barrier-closed state is sensed yields automatic reactivation or speed increase.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 16
Configuring the controller to automatically transition from “stop” to “run” upon verified closure is a conventional interlock practice, as seen in Reference 3. A skilled artisan would have adopted this automation to reduce operator workload and speed recovery.
───────
CLAIM 17 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND IN FURTHER VIEW OF REFERENCE 3.
───────
The method according to claim 15, wherein, when the safety barrier is opened, a preferably visual and/or acoustic alarm is triggered in the cableway station and/or outside the cableway station.
ANALYSIS — REFERENCES 1 + 2 + 3
Reference 1 provides the open event via contacts 18. Reference 3 teaches audible/visual alarms 115 and 16 to announce door operations to staff and riders. Triggering such alarms on a barrier-open event when integrating remote-actuated barriers per Reference 2 is a straightforward implementation.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 17
Annunciating a safety barrier opening is a well-understood practice to improve safety. Reference 3 demonstrates this in analogous station doors; the same reason to alert exists in ropeway stations.
───────
CLAIM 18 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND IN FURTHER VIEW OF REFERENCES 3 AND 4.
───────
The method according to claim 15, wherein the safety barrier is controlled via a stationary remote control unit preferably arranged in an operation room of the cableway station and/or in a central operation room outside the cableway station for several cableway stations, or via a portable remote control unit, and preferably a mobile telephone or a portable computer.
ANALYSIS — REFERENCES 1 + 2 + 3 + 4
Reference 2 provides remote control units 51–53 and actuating unit 30, 36, 37 for barrier actuation, suitable for stationary placement in an operation room. Reference 3 provides a central controller architecture (PSC controller 103 integrated with CI controller 201 via network ports 14, 22) that coordinates many doors across a system, illustrating central operation room control for multiple stations. Reference 4 teaches portable, handheld remote actuation via a radio receiver in post 2 commanded by a handheld transmitter, showing a portable remote device controlling a barrier’s drive unit 5, motor 18, and accumulators 6. Combining these teachings yields the recited alternatives of stationary operation-room control, central control for several stations, and portable remote control.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 18
It is an obvious deployment choice to provide both fixed operator consoles and portable remote devices for barrier control to improve flexibility and response time. Reference 3 shows centralization across stations; Reference 4 shows portable handsets for barrier actuation. Using both modes together in the ropeway context achieves predictable operational benefits without changing the underlying control functions taught by Reference 2.
Claim 6 — rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and in further view of Reference 5 (and/or Reference 6).
───────
The cableway station according to claim 1, wherein a camera system with at least one camera and with an evaluation unit is provided as the sensor, wherein the at least one safety barrier is arranged in the capture range of the at least one camera, wherein the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the images captured by the at least one camera in order to detect at least the opening state of the safety barrier and to transmit the sensor signal to the control unit.
ANALYSIS — REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND IN FURTHER VIEW OF REFERENCE 5/6
Reference 1 discloses a cable installation station safety gate comprising post 2 and crossbar 4, with a releasable small bar 15 and electrical contacts 18 that provide a sensor signal to stop the installation when the gate is opened. Reference 1 therefore teaches the station environment, the openable safety barrier, and a sensor producing a signal corresponding to gate opening to control the ropeway drive.
Reference 2 teaches remote actuation of a barrier by an actuating unit including drive motor 30, control module 36, and switch 37 under control of remote controls 51, 52, 53, enabling movement between open and closed positions. This is consistent with the parent claim 1 context and confirms the practical integration of barrier state sensing and barrier actuation in safety systems.
Reference 5 teaches a camera-based imaging assembly with an evaluation module configured to analyze images and determine whether a door is open, and upon determining an open state to transmit a door-open status signal to a controller. Reference 4 similarly teaches use of a camera with a signal-processing evaluation unit to recognize platform-door status and generate corresponding control instructions for the door controller. These publications teach using a camera plus an evaluation unit “as the sensor” for door/barrier state, with the barrier located within the camera’s field of view (capture range), and generating a status signal transmissible to the control unit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to substitute the contact-based sensor interface of Reference 1 (contacts 18 at small bar 15) with the camera-and-evaluation-unit sensing of Reference 5 or 6, positioning the safety barrier within the camera’s capture range, and configuring the evaluation module to output the same type of binary state signal indicating whether the barrier is open or closed to the ropeway control. Reference 2’s actuating unit remains unchanged; only the sensing modality is upgraded to camera/evaluation. The resulting combination meets all limitations of claim 6: a camera system with at least one camera and an evaluation unit provided as the sensor; the barrier within the capture range; evaluation of images to detect at least the opening state; and transmission of a sensor signal to the control unit.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 6
Camera-based state detection is a known, predictable alternative to contact or discrete position switches, offering contactless operation, reduced mechanical wear, and the ability to cover multiple barriers with one camera. In station environments, machine-vision sensing is widely used to evaluate door/gate status and trigger control/alarms. Substituting the camera/evaluation module of Reference 5 or 6 for the contact sensor of Reference 1 achieves these known benefits without changing the principle of operation of the safety interlock; therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 — rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and in further view of References 7 and 8.
───────
The method according to claim 15, wherein images and/or videos of the safety barrier arranged in the capture range of the camera are captured by at least one camera and are displayed on a display unit preferably arranged in an operation room of the cableway station and/or in a central operation room outside the cableway station.
ANALYSIS — REFERENCES 1 + 2 + 7 + 8
Reference 1 teaches the method context of operating a ropeway with a station safety gate whose opening triggers a stop via contacts 18. Reference 2 teaches remotely actuating and controlling the barrier arm 25 by controller 36/37, consistent with claim 15. References 7 and 8 teach station and central ROC video systems: at least one camera captures images of station areas and displays them on operator display units in the station operation room and on displays in a central operation room (ROC), with automatic presentation of relevant views on safety events.
It would have been obvious to add the claimed steps to the method of claim 15: capture images/videos of the barrier within the camera’s capture range using at least one station camera, and display those images on a display unit in the station operation room and/or in a central operation room. These are ordinary operational steps in ropeway CCTV/ROC workflows, integrated with safety-gate events.
MOTIVATION TO COMBINE FOR CLAIM 20
Combining camera capture and operator display with barrier-interlock operation enhances safety oversight and is standard in ropeway operations. A person of ordinary skill would implement these steps to allow operators to verify conditions before remotely resetting the barrier, producing predictable improvements in safety and efficiency.
Response to Arguments dated 1/21/2026
Applicant’s response filed January 21, 2026 has been considered.
STATUS OF CLAIMS AFTER AMENDMENT
Applicant indicates that claims 1–8 and 15–20 are under consideration, that claims 9–14 are canceled, and that claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 15–20 are amended. The Listing of Claims submitted with the response reflects these cancellations and amendments.
DISPOSITION OF PRIOR REJECTIONS MADE MOOT BY CANCELLATION
The prior rejections of claims 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are moot because claims 9 and 11 have been canceled. The prior rejections of claims 10, 12, 13, and 14 (as previously applied) are similarly moot because those claims have been canceled.
DISPOSITION OF THE PRIOR § 112 ISSUES
Applicant asserts that the § 112(b) indefiniteness rejections and the claim objections are moot in view of the amendments. Examiner agrees.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS — 103 REJECTIONS BASED ON DE ARAUJO IN VIEW OF KELLER
Applicant traverses the § 103 rejection of independent claim 1 (and similarly independent claim 15) over De Araujo (US 5,099,223) in view of Keller (EP 2 052 942), asserting, in substance, that (i) the cited references do not disclose a “cable car station/cableway station,” and (ii) the proposed combination would require “substantial redesign,” because De Araujo’s gate uses a releasable member (small crossbar 15) that must be manually reinserted, whereas Keller rotates a barrier arm between open and closed positions.
These arguments are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
CABLEWAY STATION LIMITATION (CLAIMS 1 AND 15)
Independent claim 1 requires “a cableway station for at least one cableway” in which an openable safety barrier is provided, with sensing and control of a cableway drive as a function of barrier state. Independent claim 15 similarly requires a method for operating a cableway with a cableway station in which an openable safety barrier is arranged.
De Araujo expressly relates to safety devices used “in cable installations for transporting people,” particularly skiers, including chairlifts and ski tows, and teaches detecting improper passage and generating “control information” to shut down the installation when the safety gate is activated. In the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, a “cableway station” is a station or area associated with a cable installation where such safety gates are deployed to detect improper passage and to stop the installation. Applicant’s distinction that De Araujo uses the phrase “cable installation” rather than explicitly “cableway station” is not controlling where the disclosed environment and use is the ropeway/chairlift/ski tow station context and the safety gate is installed at a monitored passage associated with the installation.
Moreover, even if applicant’s interpretation were adopted, claim 1 does not require that the “station” be a specific, separately claimed structural building with unique station-only components; it requires that the barrier, sensor, and control functionality be provided “in the cableway station.” De Araujo’s disclosed installation context provides a suitable station environment for the claimed barrier-and-stop interlock arrangement. Applicant’s argument therefore does not overcome the rejection.
“SUBSTANTIAL REDESIGN” ARGUMENT (CLAIMS 1 AND 15)
Applicant argues that Keller’s motorized barrier arm actuation cannot be applied to De Araujo’s safety gate without “significant redesign,” because De Araujo’s small crossbar 15 is released from the retention member and must be reinserted to rearm, while Keller’s barrier arm is rotated between positions.
This argument is not persuasive because it is premised on an unduly narrow assumption that the rejection requires preserving De Araujo’s exact “releasable member” mechanism while also applying Keller’s exact “rotating barrier arm” mechanism without any adaptation.
Independent claims 1 and 15 do not require that the safety barrier use a releasable small crossbar that fully detaches and must be manually reinserted. The claims require only an “openable safety barrier,” a sensor that detects the barrier opening state and transmits a signal to a control unit, and a remotely-operable actuating unit that can reset the barrier from open to closed. Those limitations read on a wide range of barrier structures, including pivotable arms, gates, doors, and other openable barriers.
Keller teaches a remotely controllable actuating architecture for moving a barrier between positions using a motor and remote control signals. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that Keller’s core teaching relevant to claim 1 is remote actuation to place a barrier back into a safe/closed position, not the particular aesthetic or exact mechanical geometry of Keller’s barrier arm. The skilled artisan would reasonably adapt the remote actuation concept to the De Araujo safety gate context in one of at least two predictable ways, each within ordinary skill.
First, the De Araujo safety gate could be modified to use a pivotable barrier member (instead of a fully releasable member) while retaining the known ropeway station safety function of stopping the installation when the barrier is opened/activated. Converting a manually reset safety gate into a motorized, remotely resettable gate is the type of predictable automation substitution addressed by KSR and the rationales in MPEP § 2143, including substituting one known element for another to obtain predictable results and using a known technique (motorized remote actuation) to improve a similar device (ropeway safety gate).
Second, even if one begins from De Araujo’s rearming concept, Keller’s remote actuation teachings would motivate implementing a remotely operable actuator to restore the barrier to the closed/armed condition after activation, replacing the manual reset step. The fact that De Araujo’s disclosed embodiment describes manual rearming does not render remote rearming non-obvious where remote motorized actuation of barriers is taught by Keller, and where the claimed function is simply “reset from open to closed” rather than any specific mechanical process.
Applicant’s “substantial redesign” framing also does not negate obviousness where the modification is a predictable engineering adaptation that achieves the very purpose motivating the combination: reducing downtime and enabling remote reset without sending personnel to the barrier location. The question is not whether some redesign effort exists, but whether there is a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success. Here, there is.
Accordingly, the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 15 over De Araujo in view of Keller remain proper. Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the prima facie case.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS TIED TO THE SAME ASSERTED DEFICIENCY (CLAIMS 2, 4, 5, 8; AND CLAIMS 16–19)
Applicant asserts that claims depending from claim 1 and claim 15 are allowable for “at least the same reasons” offered against the independent claims. This is not persuasive because the dependent claims do not cure the asserted deficiency. Rather, they add further limitations. Where the independent claim remains unpatentable, dependent claims are separately evaluated, and they remain unpatentable where the added limitations are taught or suggested by the applied references or additional references cited for those added features.
Applicant’s reliance on a general proposition that dependent claims should be allowable if an independent claim is allowable does not apply where the independent claim is not allowable and where the added limitations are separately shown or suggested.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS — CLAIMS 6, 7, 19, AND 20 (CAMERA/DISPLAY ADDITIONS)
Applicant argues, in substance, that the camera/evaluation references (applied to claim 6) and the CCTV/display references (applied to claims 7 and 20) “do not address” the asserted deficiency of De Araujo in view of Keller.
This argument is not persuasive because it misapprehends the role of the additional references in the combinations.
The additional references were not applied to “fix” the remote-actuation teaching. They were applied for the additional, narrower limitations of the dependent claims, namely camera-based state detection/evaluation and camera image/video display at the station and/or at a central operation room. If the base combination De Araujo in view of Keller teaches the limitations of the independent claim (which it does, as explained above), it is sufficient that the additional reference(s) teach the incremental dependent-claim features. The incremental references are not required to re-teach every element of the independent claim, and they are not required to address applicant’s characterization of a “deficiency” where the deficiency is not found under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, the dependent-claim rejections stand where the incremental camera/evaluation/display features are taught or suggested by the applied additional references, and where there is a recognized motivation to incorporate camera monitoring and operator display into station safety systems for verification, situational awareness, and faster recovery actions.
Response to Arguments dated 06/03/2026
Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Ref. 1 nor Ref. 2 teaches the amended limitation requiring activation of the cableway drive or an increase of the drive speed to be prevented when the sensor signal corresponding to the open position of the safety barrier is received, and to be enabled only upon receipt of a sensor signal corresponding to the closed position of the safety barrier.
This argument is not persuasive because it addresses Ref. 1 and Ref. 2 individually and does not address the combined teachings now applied. The rejection relies on Ref. 1 for the cable-installation safety gate, state-sensing contact arrangement, and shutdown of the cable installation when the gate is actuated. The rejection relies on Ref. 2 for the remotely-operable actuating unit and remote-control reset of a barrier. The rejection relies on Ref. 3 for the interlock logic requiring safe closed/locked status before operation is permitted.
Applicant’s argument that Ref. 1 does not transmit a “sensor signal” to a control unit is not persuasive. Ref. 1 discloses electrical contacts 18 that are in contact with conductive small bar 15 when the safety gate is armed. When the crossbar 4 is actuated and the small bar 15 is released, current no longer passes between contacts 18. Ref. 1 expressly teaches that this electrical information is transmitted as control information to shut down the installation. The change in electrical state at contacts 18 is a sensor signal under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. The claim does not require that the signal be a digital message, a wireless message, a data packet, or any particular type of encoded control signal.
Applicant’s argument is also not persuasive to the extent it suggests that Ref. 1 merely discloses a mechanical release without any control consequence. Ref. 1 expressly teaches that release of the safety gate interrupts electrical continuity and that the resulting electrical information is used as control information to shut down the cable installation. Thus, Ref. 1 discloses both detection of the safety barrier state and control of the cable installation as a function of that detected state.
Applicant’s argument that Ref. 2 does not control a cableway drive is not persuasive because Ref. 2 is not relied upon for controlling the cableway drive. Ref. 2 is relied upon for the remotely-operable actuating unit and remote control unit. The claim requires a safety barrier having a remotely-operable actuating unit controllable by a remote control unit to reset the safety barrier from open to closed. Ref. 2 teaches that feature through drive motor 30, control module 36, switch 37, remote controls 51, 52, and 53, and the associated switching network. The fact that Ref. 2’s motor 30 drives a barrier rather than a cableway drive does not undermine the rejection; that is the very feature for which Ref. 2 is applied.
Applicant’s argument that the amended “prevented” and “only enabled” language is not taught by Ref. 1 or Ref. 2 is not persuasive in view of Ref. 3. Ref. 3 teaches a passenger-transport interlock in which door status information is monitored by controllers, and in which transport operation is inhibited when the relevant door status does not satisfy the closed/locked condition. Ref. 3 teaches door body travel switches 11, DCU controllers 12, PSC controller 13/103, CI controller 21/201, platform door status relay 106, and reset relay 205, all associated with determining and acting on door status. Ref. 3 further teaches that if a platform door state does not meet the closed-and-locked condition, the system controls train operation accordingly, including by parking or emergency braking. This teaches or at least strongly suggests that operation is not enabled unless the safe closed/locked state is confirmed.
The amended claim language does not require any particular structure for the “prevented” state or “only enabled” state beyond ordinary safety-interlock behavior. In the combined system, when the Ref. 1 safety gate is in the open/released state, the sensor signal produced by contacts 18 indicates that unsafe condition and the control unit prevents drive activation or speed increase. When the Ref. 2 remote actuator restores the barrier to the closed/armed state, and when the Ref. 1 sensor/contact arrangement provides the corresponding closed-state signal, the Ref. 3 interlock logic enables operation. This is a predictable implementation of known safety-control logic.
Applicant’s argument that Ref. 1 requires manual rearming does not overcome the rejection. Ref. 1’s disclosed manual rearming is the problem addressed by the combination, not a teaching away. Ref. 2 teaches a known remote motorized barrier actuator. A person of ordinary skill would have had reason to replace or supplement manual rearming of the Ref. 1 safety gate with the remote reset arrangement of Ref. 2 to reduce downtime and avoid requiring personnel to physically travel to the gate. Nothing in Ref. 1 criticizes, discredits, or discourages remote actuation. Ref. 1 simply does not provide it.
Applicant’s argument that the proposed combination would require substantial redesign is also not persuasive. The claim does not require the exact releasable small-bar structure of Ref. 1, the exact barrier geometry of Ref. 2, or any particular mechanical linkage for remote reset. The claim broadly recites an “openable safety barrier” having a remotely-operable actuating unit. Applying Ref. 2’s known remote actuation to Ref. 1’s safety gate is a predictable automation of a known manually reset safety device. The fact that ordinary mechanical adaptation may be required does not establish nonobviousness where the modification uses known components for their known purpose and yields expected results.
Applicant’s arguments further fail because they do not address the reason to combine. In a cableway station, after a safety barrier has been actuated and the cableway drive has been stopped or slowed, the operator should not be required to physically rearm the barrier if known remote actuation is available. At the same time, the control system should not permit restart merely because a remote reset command was issued; safe restart should be permitted only after the barrier’s closed/armed state is confirmed. Ref. 1 supplies the safety gate and shutdown signal, Ref. 2 supplies the remote reset actuator, and Ref. 3 supplies the closed-state interlock logic. The combination therefore directly addresses the operational and safety considerations presented by the amended claim.
Accordingly, applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection. Amended claim 1 remains unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and in further view of Ref. 3.
Applicant’s remarks regarding dependent claims 2–8 and 16–20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant generally asserts that the dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons presented with respect to independent claims 1 and 15. This argument is not persuasive because, as explained above, independent claims 1 and 15 remain unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and in further view of Ref. 3. Applicant has not identified a separate limitation in the dependent claims that patentably distinguishes over the applied combinations.
To the extent applicant argues that the additional references applied to the dependent claims do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Ref. 1 and Ref. 2, that argument is also not persuasive. The additional references are not relied upon to re-teach the base safety-gate structure, cableway shutdown, remote reset, or interlock logic. Rather, they are relied upon only for the additional limitations recited in the dependent claims.
For example, Ref. 3 is relied upon for alarm and passenger-transport interlock features, including audible/visual alarm units 115 and 16 and door-status based operation control. Ref. 4 is relied upon for portable remote-control barrier operation, including a radio receiver in post 2 and a handheld transmitter controlling drive unit 5 and electric motor 18. Ref. 5 and/or Ref. 6 are relied upon for camera-based image evaluation of door or barrier state. Ref. 7 and/or Ref. 8 are relied upon for ropeway camera monitoring and display of station images or videos at local or central operator displays.
Thus, the additional references are properly applied for the incremental features of the dependent claims. Applicant’s argument does not show that those additional limitations are absent from the cited references, nor does applicant explain why a person of ordinary skill would not have combined those known monitoring, alarm, display, camera, and remote-control features with the base cableway safety-barrier system.
Applicant’s reliance on the patentability of the independent claims is therefore insufficient. Because independent claims 1 and 15 remain unpatentable, and because the additional dependent-claim limitations are taught or suggested by the cited secondary references, dependent claims 2–8 and 16–20 remain rejected.
To the extent applicant requested clarification regarding claims 7 and 19, the rejections have been clarified in this action. Claim 7 is rejected based on the base combination of Ref. 1, Ref. 2, and Ref. 3, with Ref. 7 and/or Ref. 8 applied for the added camera/display limitations. Claim 19 is rejected based on the base combination of Ref. 1, Ref. 2, and Ref. 3, with Ref. 5 and/or Ref. 6 applied for the added camera/image-recognition limitations. This clarification does not alter the underlying basis for unpatentability; it merely identifies the specific teachings relied upon for the dependent-claim features.
Conclusion
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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
Prosecution Insights