Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that several of the claims in the instant application use the conditional alternative phrase “and/or”. While this does not pose an issue under 35 USC 112 in the instant application since the disclosure provides adequate support for both the “and” and the “or” conditions, for purposes of applying the prior art this phrase will be interpreted to be the broader “or” condition. Consistent with U.S. patent practice and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, where the claims recite limitations such as and opening element and/or a closing element for example, this will be interpreted as an opening element OR a closing element, and for purposes of anticipation, the prior art only needs to disclose one OR the other.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beck (US 8635958 B2).
Regarding claim 1, the Beck reference discloses an actuation apparatus 6 for arrangement in a cable car station of a cable car railway for actuating an entry barrier (safety bar 31) of a cable car vehicle 3, which barrier is displaceable between an open position and a closed position. The barrier actuation apparatus 6 is actuatable by a remote-control unit in order to displace the entry barrier from the open position to the closed position when the cable car vehicle is located in the cable car station in the region of the barrier actuation apparatus (column 6, lines 15-24, sensed condition of sensor 50 of first closing unit 5 sends a control signal to a control unit to leave the actuating unit 6 in an inoperative position if the safety bar is closed and locked, or if not, move the actuation unit 6 to the operative closing position). At least one movable actuating component 61 is provided in the barrier actuation apparatus 6, which actuating component is displaced by the remote control unit when the barrier actuation apparatus is activated, in order to exert an actuating force on a mechanically actuatable barrier actuating element 32 of the cable car vehicle for actuating the safety bar (column 6, lines 15-24), the barrier actuating element being a closing element 61 displaced by the actuating force in order to actuate the safety bar. The closing element 61 can be displaced between a closing rest position and a closing operating position by a closing actuating unit 62, the closing element generating a closing force on the barrier actuating element 32 when it is displaced from the closing rest position into the closing operating position in order to displace the entry barrier into the closed position.
Regarding claim 4, the closing element 61 includes at least one weight 67 (Column 6, lines 34-35).
Regarding claim 5, the actuation apparatus is located in a cable car station having at least one cable car traversing therethrough (Column 4, lines 12-22).
Regarding claim 6, the closing element 61 is a closing rail (Column 6, lines 34-35).
Regarding claim 7, the barrier actuating element 32 of the cable car vehicle is located in a vertical direction below the closing element 61, when the cable car vehicle is located in the region of the barrier actuation apparatus (Figure 3A).
Regarding claim 8, the barrier actuation apparatus 6 is arranged in an upper area of an exit area of the cable car station provided for the exit of the cable car vehicle from the cable car station (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, the cable car vehicle comprises a chair 3, the entry barrier being a safety bar 31.
Regarding claim 12, the Beck reference discloses a method for operating a cable car having at least one cable car station and cable car vehicle 3 comprising the steps of:
Providing the at least one cable car vehicle with at least one actuatable entry barrier (safety bar 31) on the cable car vehicle, which barrier is displaceable between an open position and a closed position when actuated,
Moving the cable car vehicle in the cable car station into a region of a barrier actuation apparatus 6, the barrier actuation apparatus being remotely controllable (via sensor 50 in upstream actuating apparatus 5),
Displacing the safety bar 31 into the closed position by activating the barrier actuation apparatus 6 by a remote-control unit, the safety bar being actuated when the barrier actuation apparatus is activated, in that a movable actuating component 61 of the barrier actuation apparatus is displaced and exerts an actuating force on a mechanically actuatable barrier actuating element 32 of the cable car vehicle (column 6, lines 15-24, sensed condition of sensor 50 of first closing unit 5 sends a control signal to a control unit to leave the actuating unit 6 in an inoperative position if the safety bar is closed and locked, or if not, move the actuation unit 6 to the operative closing position),
Wherein the entry barrier is displaced from the open position into the closed position by a closing force that is generated on the barrier actuating element 32 by at least one closing element 61 of the barrier actuation apparatus 6, the closing element being displaced by gravity (assisted by weights 67) between an upper closing rest position and a lower closing operating position.
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(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Kawauchi et al (US 8869707 B2).
The Beck reference, as described above, discloses all of the features claimed except for the actuatable element actuator being electrically actuated. The Beck reference does disclose the use of the closing actuator being a motor 62 for moving the closing element (rail 61), but is silent as to the type of motor. Kawauchi discloses the use of electric motors to be well known in the art as suitable types of motor actuators for moving vehicle roller/wheel engaging rails into and out of operative position (Column 7, line 56 to Column 8, line 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Beck to include the use of the rail moving actuator motor being electric, as taught by Kawauchi, in order to provide a suitable type of motor actuator for moving the closing rail element 61, this being one suitable and well-known choice from a number of limited motor type options. Note that regarding claim 2, when the “or” phrase is interpretated to the closing element alternative as was set forth with respect to claim 1 above, the element being an opening element is considered non-limiting in that respect, as the closing element alternative is still satisfied by the reference.
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Tsai et al (US 20060202860 A1).
The Beck reference, as described above, discloses all of the features claimed except for the control unit being located in the station (claim 13), and specifically in a control room of the station (claim 10). The Beck reference has some type of control unit that receives the signal from remote sensor 50, but the reference is silent as to the type and location details of the control unit. The Tsai reference shows it is well-known to house a control unit that receives signals from a trackside sensor in a railway station control room (0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Beck to include the use of housing the control unit in a control room of the railway station, as taught by Tsai, in order to provide a suitable location for the control unit safe from adverse environmental elements.
Additionally, regarding claim 13, the remote-control that controls the barrier actuating apparatus of Beck in the combination must inherently be either wireless or wired, as these are the only two possibilities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In addition to indicated allowable subject matter above, as noted in the “Claim interpretation” section of this Office action, the “and/or” language only requires the option of either an opening element or closing element in the broadest reasonable interpretation, and not both. It is suggested that should applicant claim both an opening element and a closing element in the same barrier actuation apparatus instead of just one or the other, such a recitation would render the claim patentable over the prior art of record, provided such a recitation contained sufficient structure to overcome any potential broad interpretation of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Beck reference fails to adequately disclose a remote control, both because the sensor 50 mapped in the Office action is not remotely located, and that it is just a sensor and does not emit any control signal. With regards to the first argument, as noted in the previous Office action and repeated above, sensor 50 controls the operation of the barrier actuation component 61. As clearly illustrated in figure 2 of Beck, sensor 50 is located well upstream in the conveying path from component 61, and is therefore clearly remote therefrom. With regards to applicant’s second argument, as noted in the Office action and repeated above, column 6 lines 15-24 describe the manner in which the sensor controls the actuation unit. When the cable car vehicle passes past the sensor 50, if the sensor senses that the safety bar is in the closed position, “the sensor emits a control signal to the effect that the operation of the cableway system is continued” (column 6, lines 18-19, emphasis added). The signal emitted from the sensor controls the actuation unit to retain the actuation unit in the up position. If the sensor does not trigger when car passes by, it means that the safety bar is not in the locked position, and the actuation unit is moved to the down position. For the above reasons, the examiner maintains that the remotely located upstream sensor does in fact control the position of the actuation unit, and therefore is in fact operating as a remote-control unit.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Samuel Joseph Morano whose telephone number is (571)272-6684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday before 3:30 pm Eastern.
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, TC Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571)272-8004. 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.
S. JOSEPH MORANO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615