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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28 , 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument on pages 8 and 9 pertaining to “Pfeifer discloses using a first sensor to detect entry of a cable car in an entry area and using a second sensor to detect entry of a cable car in an exit area. The entry area and the exit area are arranged at two opposite ends of a cableway support length. Pfeifer discloses calculating a number of cable cars in the cableway support length by comparing a number of cable cars detected in the entry area and a number of cable cars detected in the exit area. If the number of cable cars calculated between the entry area and the exit area is greater than a threshold then an alarm is transmitted. This embodiment does not teach calculating a length of the cable and to compare the measurement with a threshold to distinguish a normal operation and an abnormal operation.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding claim 12, the examiner does not rely on Pfeifer to teach the “calculating a length of the cable and to compare the measurement with a threshold to distinguish a normal operation and an abnormal operation”. The examiner relies on Pfeifer ‘110. Pfeifer ‘110 teaches, “”calculating a length of the cable (Fig. 3, ¶ 48 cable distance traveled in station 2 may also be measured directly) and to compare the measurement with a threshold (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 specified permissible cable distance range) to distinguish a normal operation and an abnormal operation (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 malfunction). The distance traveled by the vehicle is along the cable and thus equal to the running length of the cable.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 9 pertaining to “Pfeifer explicitly discloses using at least two sensors (one sensor in the entry area and one sensor in the exit area). There is no disclosure of a single sensor that is able to detect entry in a running zone and exit from the running zone. So as to improve reliability, Pfeifer teaches using a plurality of sensors in the entry area and a plurality of sensor in the exit area. One skilled in the art has no motivation to use a single sensor for detecting entry and exit.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As mentioned in this Office Action (OA), the examiner does not rely on the plurality of sensors taught by Pfeifer. The examiner relies on Pfeifer ‘290 and Pfeifer ‘110. Pfeifer ‘290 teaches using a single sensor (Fig. 1, ¶ 29 one cable position sensor 18). Pfeifer ‘110 teaches, a single sensor (Fig. 3, reader 30) to detect entrance and exiting of a vehicle in the running zone and transmit a malfunction signal (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 malfunction). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 for the benefit of detecting entry of at least one vehicle in a running zone using a sensor that does not require power supply.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 9 pertaining to “Furthermore, Pfeifer teaches calculating a transit time and not a length of cable running along the cable support length. The transit time is not a length of the cable running along the cable support length.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As mentioned above, the examiner does not rely on Pfeifer to teach calculating the length of a cable using a transit time. The examiner relies on Pfeifer ‘110 to teach measuring running cable length. Pfeifer ‘110 teaches, “”calculating a length of the cable (Fig. 3, ¶ 48 cable distance traveled in station 2 may also be measured directly). The distance traveled by the vehicle is along the cable and thus equal to the running length of the cable.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 10 pertaining to “It is further asserted that Pfeifer fails to disclose a calculator configured to calculate a variable that is representative of a running length of the cable, the calculator being configured to calculate the variable in response to detection of the at least one vehicle in the running zone, as recited in claim 17. As explained above, Pfeifer does not teach calculating a variable representative of a running length of the cable along the running zone. As explained in the specification, the variable is calculated from the length of the cable and not from the speed of the cable.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned in this OA, the examiner does not rely on Pfeifer to teach calculating a variable representative of a running length of the cable from the cable speed. The examiner relies on Pfeifer ‘110 to teach, calculating a variable representative of a running length of the cable. Pfeifer ‘110 teaches, a calculator (Fig. 4, ¶ 30 cableway control system 10 is generally distributed over a plurality of control units) configured to calculate a variable that is representative of a running length of the cable (Fig. 3, ¶ 48 cable distance traveled in station 2 may also be measured directly). The measured distance travelled by the vehicle along the cable is equal to the running cable length.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 11 pertaining to “The transit time is compared to a threshold time corresponding to the time taken by the cable car to cross the cableway support. Because Pfeifer teaches comparing times, Pfeifer has to estimate the running speed for the cable. Pfeifer estimates the speed of the cable thanks to the control unit or assume normal operation at constant speed with no disruption. Pfeifer is not capable of providing a measurement as accurate as the method according to claim 15.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding claim 17 as mentioned above, the examiner does not rely on Pfeifer to teach calculating the length of a cable using a transit time. The examiner relies on Pfeifer ‘110 to teach measuring running cable length. Pfeifer ‘110 teaches, calculating a length of the cable (Fig. 3, ¶ 48 cable distance traveled in station 2 may also be measured directly). The distance traveled by the vehicle is along the cable and thus equal to the running length of the cable and not an estimate.
In response to Applicant's argument on pages 11 – 12 pertaining to “One skilled in the art has no motivation to take into account Tarassoff's disclosure because Tarassoff teaches providing a pulse when a carriage passes close to the detector 24 independently to the running of the cable. Tarassoff does not disclose or suggest monitoring the length of the cable. … Tarassoff does not disclose measuring the length of the cable. Tarassoff teaches clamping the carriage at a predefined period so as to phase a periodic signal.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding claim 15 as mentioned in this OA, the examiner relies on Pfeifer ‘290 to teach measuring the running length of the cable from the distance travelled by the vehicle along the cable (Fig. 1, ¶ 23 cable cars 5, predetermined distance from one another). Examiner further relies on Tarassoff to teach calculating a cable running length by counting vehicles that are the same distance apart along the cable (Fig. 1. Claim 3 predetermined spacing between successive carriages, Col. 4. Lin. 18-21 supplying a pulse 25 each time a carriage passes its location). It would be obvious for one skilled in the art to combine the method of determining a cable running length taught by Pfeifer ‘290 with the method of determining a cable running length taught by Tarassoff for the benefit of monitoring a cableway installation without the risk of collision and without the vehicles stopping.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 12 pertaining to “Pfeifer teaches forming several detection zones that are arranged one behind the other on each cableway support. Pfeifer does not teach forming two detection zones, one detection zone being included inside the other detection zone. Two variables are calculated simultaneously and are compared to two different thresholds.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding claim 23, as mentioned in this OA, the examiner does not rely on Pfeifer. The examiner relies on Pfeifer ‘110. Pfeifer ‘110 teaches, forming two detection zones, one detection zone being included inside the other detection zone (Fig. 4, ¶ 47, passage zones DZm, m≥1) (Fig. 4, cable pulley 3, guide rail 6). Two variables are calculated simultaneously (Fig. 3, ¶ 48 cable distance traveled in station 2 may also be measured directly) and are compared to two different thresholds (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 specified permissible cable distance range).
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) 12 – 14, 16, 17, 19 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeifer et al (US 2022/0169290 A1) (herein after Pfeifer ‘290) in view of Pfeifer et al (US 2021/0024110 A1) (herein after Pfeifer ‘110).
Regarding Claim 12, Pfeifer ‘290 teaches, a method for monitoring a cableway installation (Fig. 1, Claim 15 a method for detecting the passage of cable cars on a cableway support of a cableway), the cableway installation comprising at least one vehicle (Fig. 1, cable car 5) provided with at least one clamp (Fig. 1, cable clamp 6) attaching the at least one vehicle to the cable, the method comprising: detecting entry of the at least one vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶ 27 detect the presence of a cable car 5) in a running zone (Fig. 1, cableway support length L) by means of a detector (Fig. 1, ¶ 29 one cable position sensor 18) and detecting exit of the at least one vehicle from the running zone by means of said detector (Fig. 1, ¶ 29 for detecting the passage of the cable car 5), —.
Pfeifer ‘290 fails to teach, — wherein the detector is a single sensor and wherein in response to detection of entry of the at least one vehicle in the running zone triggering calculation of a running length of the cable starting from the detection, wherein the at least one clamp is fixed to the cable so that the cable hauls the at least one vehicle when the at least one vehicle is running in the running zone; comparing the running length with a threshold representative of a length of the running zone until receiving a detection of exit of the at least one vehicle from the running zone; transmitting a malfunction signal when the running length has reached the threshold.
In analogous art, Pfeifer ‘110 teaches, — wherein the detector is a single sensor (Fig. 3, reader 30) and wherein in response to detection of entry of the at least one vehicle in the running zone triggering calculation of a running length of the cable (Fig. 3, ¶ 48 cable distance traveled in station 2 may also be measured directly) starting from the detection, wherein the at least one clamp is fixed to the cable so that the cable hauls the at least one vehicle when the at least one vehicle is running in the running zone (Fig. 2, ¶ 27 a releasable clamp 16 (FIG. 2) and moved through the station 2); comparing the running length with a threshold representative of a length of the running zone (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 specified permissible cable distance range) until receiving a detection of exit of the at least one vehicle from the running zone (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 each car Sn passing through the passage zone DZ1); transmitting a malfunction signal when the running length has reached the threshold (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 malfunction is transmitted to the cableway control system 10 in a function status message FS2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeifer ‘290 by combining the method performed by the cableway installation detection taught by Pfeifer ‘290 with a method performed by a cableway installation detection comprising: a detector, wherein the detector is a single sensor and wherein in response to detection of entry of the at least one vehicle in the running zone triggering calculation of a running length of the cable starting from the detection, wherein the at least one clamp is fixed to the cable so that the cable hauls the at least one vehicle when the at least one vehicle is running in the running zone; comparing the running length with a threshold representative of a length of the running zone until receiving a detection of exit of the at least one vehicle from the running zone; transmitting a malfunction signal when the running length has reached the threshold; taught by Pfeifer ‘110 for the benefit of detecting entry of at least one vehicle in a running zone using a sensor that does not require power supply. [Pfeifer ‘110: ¶ 34 passive radio transponders RFn, e.g. passive RFID transponders, are a good option here because no power supply for the radio transponders RFn on the car 5n is necessary for this purpose].
Regarding Claim 13, Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 teach the limitations of claim 12, which this claim depends on.
Pfeifer ‘290 further teaches, the method for monitoring a cableway installation according to claim 12, comprising determining receipt of an event (Fig. 2c, sensor values SW) indicating exit of the at least one vehicle from the running zone (Fig. 2c, ¶ 27 second sensor 15 is arranged in the exit area A), and transmitting the malfunction signal if the event is not received after the running length has reached the threshold (Fig. 1, ¶ 39 specified transit time; Examiner interpretation: generate the fault signal F if a time exceeds the specified transit time).
Regarding Claim 14, Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 teach the limitations of claim 12, which this claim depends on.
Pfeifer ‘290 further teaches, the method for monitoring a cableway installation according to claim 12, comprising re-initialising the running length (Fig. 2c, ¶ 40 evaluation unit 16 decrements the counter value, to a counter value Z=0) in response to receipt of an event indicating exit of the at least one vehicle from the running zone, the running length not having reached the threshold (Fig. 2c, ¶ 40 cable clamp 6 has passed the sensors 15 of the exit area A).
Regarding Claim 16, Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 teaches the limitations of claim 13, which this claim depends on.
Pfeifer ‘290 further teaches, the method according to claim 13, wherein the cableway installation comprises transmitting a first signal indicating entry of the vehicle in the running zone (Fig. 1, ¶ 35 step value W if a first sensor 15 in the entry area E) and transmitting a second signal indicating exit of the at least one vehicle from the running zone (Fig. 1, ¶ 35 step value W if a second sensor 15 in the exit area A), and the event corresponds to receipt of the second signal.
Regarding Claim 17, Pfeifer ‘290 teaches, a monitoring device (Fig. 1, detection device 9) of a cableway installation (Fig. 1, ¶ 23 cableway), the cableway installation comprising two terminals (Fig. 1, ¶ 23 two end stations 14) for passengers to board and alight from at least one vehicle equipped with a clamp (Fig. 1, cable clamp 6) and designed to be hauled by the cable between the two terminals, the monitoring device comprising: a detector (Fig. 1, first sensor 15, second sensor 15) configured to detect entry (Fig. 1, ¶ 35 entry area E) of the at least one vehicle in a running zone (Fig. 1, cableway support length L) and exit (Fig. 1, ¶ 35 exit area A) of the at least one vehicle from the running zone, the detector defining a running zone where the at least one vehicle is hauled by the cable; —.
Pfeifer ‘290 fails to teach, — a calculator configured to calculate a variable that is representative of a running length of the cable, the calculator being configured to calculate the variable in response to detection of the at least one vehicle in the running zone, and a comparator configured to compare the variable with a threshold representative of a length of the running zone, wherein the monitoring device is configured to transmit a malfunction signal when the variable reaches the threshold.
In analogous art, Pfeifer ‘110 teaches, — a calculator (Fig. 4, ¶ 30 cableway control system 10 is generally distributed over a plurality of control units) configured to calculate a variable that is representative of a running length of the cable (Fig. 3, ¶ 48 cable distance traveled in station 2 may also be measured directly), the calculator being configured to calculate the variable in response to detection of the at least one vehicle in the running zone (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 each car Sn passing through the passage zone DZ1), and a comparator (Fig. 4, ¶ 30 cableway control system 10 is generally distributed over a plurality of control units) configured to compare the variable with a threshold representative of a length of the running zone (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 specified permissible cable distance range), wherein the monitoring device is configured to transmit a malfunction signal when the variable reaches the threshold (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 malfunction is transmitted to the cableway control system 10 in a function status message FS2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeifer ‘290 by combining the monitoring device of a cableway installation detection taught by Pfeifer ‘290 with a monitoring device of a cableway installation comprising: a calculator configured to calculate a variable that is representative of a running length of the cable, the calculator being configured to calculate the variable in response to detection of the at least one vehicle in the running zone, and a comparator configured to compare the variable with a threshold representative of a length of the running zone, wherein the monitoring device is configured to transmit a malfunction signal when the variable reaches the threshold; taught by Pfeifer ‘110 for the benefit of detecting entry of at least one vehicle in a running zone using a sensor that does not require power supply. [Pfeifer ‘110: ¶ 34 passive radio transponders RFn, e.g. passive RFID transponders, are a good option here because no power supply for the radio transponders RFn on the car 5n is necessary for this purpose].
Regarding Claim 19, Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 teaches the limitations of claim 17, which this claim depends on.
Pfeifer ‘290 further teaches, the monitoring device of a cableway installation according to claim 17, comprising a receiver (Fig. 1, control unit 11) configured to determine receipt of an event (Fig. 2c, sensor values SW) indicating exit of the at least one vehicle from the running zone (Fig. 2c, ¶ 27 second sensor 15 is arranged in the exit area A), and configured to transmit the malfunction signal if an event is not received after the variable has reached the threshold (Fig. 1, ¶ 39 specified transit time; Examiner interpretation: generate the fault signal F if a time exceeds the specified transit time), wherein the detector is designed to transmit a first signal indicating entry of the at least one vehicle in the running zone (Fig. 1, ¶ 35 step value W if a first sensor 15 in the entry area E) and designed to transmit a second signal indicating exit of the at least one vehicle from the running zone (Fig. 1, ¶ 35 step value W if a second sensor 15 in the exit area A), the receiver receiving the first and second signals, and the event corresponds to receipt of the second signal.
Regarding Claim 20, Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 teaches the limitations of claim 17, which this claim depends on.
Pfeifer ‘290 further teaches, the monitoring device of a cableway installation according to claim 17, wherein the cableway installation comprises at least one tower (Fig. 1, cableway support 1) configured to keep the cable above the ground, the at least one tower comprising at least one girder assembly (Fig. 1, longitudinal beam 7), the length of the running zone being equal to the length of the at least one girder assembly (Fig. 1, ¶ 24 longitudinal beam 7, to carry the conveyor cable 3).
Regarding Claim 21, Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 teaches the limitations of claim 19, which this claim depends on.
Pfeifer ‘290 further teaches, the monitoring device of a cableway installation according to claim 19, wherein a single sensor (Fig. 1, evaluation unit 16) is used per running zone and the sensor has a detection area (Fig. 1, cableway support length L) delimiting the running zone, and wherein the sensor is configured so that when the at least one vehicle enters the detection area (Fig. 1, ¶ 35 detect the passage of cable cars 5), the sensor transmits the first signal indicating entry of the vehicle in the running zone (Fig. 1, ¶ 35 step value W if a first sensor 15 in the entry area E), and when the vehicle exits the detection area, the sensor transmits the second signal indicating exit of the at least one vehicle from the running zone (Fig. 1, ¶ 35 step value W if a second sensor 15 in the exit area A).
Regarding Claim 22, Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 teaches the limitations of claim 17, which this claim depends on.
Pfeifer ‘290 further teaches, the cableway installation comprising a cable, at least one vehicle designed to be hauled by the cable (Fig. 1, conveyor cable 3, cable car 5), and a monitoring device according to claim 17 (Fig. 1, detection device 9).
Regarding Claim 23, Pfeifer ‘290 teaches, a method for monitoring a cableway installation (Fig. 1, Claim 15 a method for detecting the passage of cable cars on a cableway support of a cableway), the cableway installation comprising at least two terminals linked by a cable (Fig. 1, ¶ 23 two end stations 14, conveyor cable 3), a plurality of towers (Fig. 1, ¶ 24 a plurality of cableway supports) supporting the cable, at least one vehicle (Fig. 1, cable car 5) provided with at least one clamp (Fig. 1, cable clamp 6) attaching the at least one vehicle to the cable and a plurality of sensors (Fig. 1, ¶ 37 the two sensors 15) —.
Pfeifer ‘290 fails to teach, — a plurality of sensors arranged to define a plurality of running zones; wherein the plurality of running zones comprises at a first running zone and a second running zone, the first running zone being included in the second running zone; the method comprising: detecting entry of the at least one vehicle in the first running zone to trigger calculation of a first variable that is representative of a running length of the cable in the first running zone starting from said entry in the first running zone; detecting entry of the at least one vehicle in the second running zone to trigger calculation of a second variable that is representative of a running length of the cable in the second running zone; comparing the first variable with a first threshold representative of a length of the first running zone and comparing the second variable with a second threshold representative of a length of the second running zone; and transmitting a malfunction signal when the first variable has reached the first threshold or when the second variable has reached the second threshold.
In analogous art, Pfeifer ‘110 teaches, — a plurality of sensors (Fig. 4, ¶ 51 first sensor 21, second sensor 22, enters or exits the passage zone DZ1) arranged to define a plurality of running zones (Fig. 4, ¶ 47, passage zones DZm, m≥1); wherein the plurality of running zones comprises at a first running zone (Fig. 4, passage zone DZ1) and a second running zone (Fig. 4, passage zone DZ3), the first running zone being included in the second running zone (Fig. 4, cable pulley 3, guide rail 6; ”passage zone DZ1 is included in passage zone DZ3 since they are both part of cable pulley 3 and guide rail 6”); the method comprising: detecting entry of the at least one vehicle in the first running zone to trigger calculation of a first variable that is representative of a running length of the cable (Fig. 3, ¶ 48 cable distance traveled in station 2 may also be measured directly) in the first running zone starting from said entry in the first running zone (Fig. 2, ¶ 27 a releasable clamp 16 (FIG. 2) and moved through the station 2); detecting entry of the at least one vehicle in the second running zone to trigger calculation of a second variable that is representative of a running length of the cable (Fig. 3, ¶ 48 cable distance traveled in station 2 may also be measured directly) in the second running zone (Fig. 2, ¶ 27 a releasable clamp 16 (FIG. 2) and moved through the station 2); comparing the first variable with a first threshold (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 specified permissible cable distance range) representative of a length of the first running zone and comparing the second variable with a second threshold (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 specified permissible cable distance range) representative of a length of the second running zone; and transmitting a malfunction signal when the first variable has reached the first threshold or when the second variable has reached the second threshold (Fig. 4, ¶ 48 malfunction is transmitted to the cableway control system 10 in a function status message FS2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeifer ‘290 by combining the method performed by the cableway installation detection taught by Pfeifer ‘290 with a method performed by a cableway installation detection comprising: a plurality of sensors arranged to define a plurality of running zones; wherein the plurality of running zones comprises at a first running zone and a second running zone, the first running zone being included in the second running zone; the method comprising: detecting entry of the at least one vehicle in the first running zone to trigger calculation of a first variable that is representative of a running length of the cable in the first running zone starting from said entry in the first running zone; detecting entry of the at least one vehicle in the second running zone to trigger calculation of a second variable that is representative of a running length of the cable in the second running zone; comparing the first variable with a first threshold representative of a length of the first running zone and comparing the second variable with a second threshold representative of a length of the second running zone; and transmitting a malfunction signal when the first variable has reached the first threshold or when the second variable has reached the second threshold; taught by Pfeifer ‘110 for the benefit of detecting entry of at least one vehicle in a running zone using a sensor that does not require power supply. [Pfeifer ‘110: ¶ 34 passive radio transponders RFn, e.g. passive RFID transponders, are a good option here because no power supply for the radio transponders RFn on the car 5n is necessary for this purpose].
Regarding Claim 24, Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 teach the limitations of claim 23, which this claim depends on.
Pfeifer ‘290 fails to teach, the method for monitoring a cableway installation according to claim 23 wherein detection of entry of the at least one vehicle in the first running zone and detection of entry of the at least one vehicle in the second running zone are performed by a same sensor.
Pfeifer ‘110 further teaches, the method for monitoring a cableway installation according to claim 23 wherein detection of entry of the at least one vehicle in the first running zone and detection of entry of the at least one vehicle in the second running zone are performed by a same sensor (Fig. 4, ¶ 51 first sensor 21 or the second sensor 22 could also be implemented by reader 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 by combining the method performed by the cableway installation detection taught by Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 with a method performed by a cableway installation detection, wherein detection of entry of the at least one vehicle in the first running zone and detection of entry of the at least one vehicle in the second running zone are performed by a same sensor; taught by Pfeifer ‘110 for the benefit of detecting entry of at least one vehicle in a running zone using a sensor that does not require power supply. [Pfeifer ‘110: ¶ 34 passive radio transponders RFn, e.g. passive RFID transponders, are a good option here because no power supply for the radio transponders RFn on the car 5n is necessary for this purpose].
Regarding Claim 25, Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 teach the limitations of claim 23, which this claim depends on.
Pfeifer ‘290 fails to teach, the method for monitoring a cableway installation according to claim 23 wherein the second running zone comprises one of the terminals and one of the towers.
Pfeifer ‘110 further teaches, the method for monitoring a cableway installation according to claim 23 wherein the second running zone comprises one of the terminals and one of the towers (Fig. 4, station 2, guide rail 6; ”passage zone DZ3 is comprises station 2 and guide rail 6”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 by combining the method performed by the cableway installation detection taught by Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 with a method performed by a cableway installation detection, wherein the second running zone comprises one of the terminals and one of the towers; taught by Pfeifer ‘110 for the benefit of detecting entry of at least one vehicle in a running zone using a sensor that does not require power supply. [Pfeifer ‘110: ¶ 34 passive radio transponders RFn, e.g. passive RFID transponders, are a good option here because no power supply for the radio transponders RFn on the car 5n is necessary for this purpose].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeifer et al (US 2022/0169290 A1) (herein after Pfeifer ‘290) in view of Tarassoff (5,105,745) (herein after Tarassoff).
Regarding Claim 15, Pfeifer ‘290 teaches, a method for monitoring a cableway installation (Fig. 1, Claim 15 a method for detecting the passage of cable cars on a cableway support of a cableway), the cableway installation comprising at least one vehicle (Fig. 1, cable car 5) provided with at least one clamp (Fig. 1, cable clamp 6) attaching the at least one vehicle to the cable, the method comprising: detecting entry of the at least one vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶ 29 one or more cable position sensors 18, for detecting the passage of the cable car 5) in a running zone (Fig. 1, cableway support length L) to trigger calculation of a variable that is representative of a running length of the cable (Fig. 1, ¶ 23 cable cars 5, predetermined distance from one another) starting from said detection, wherein the at least one clamp is fixed to the cable so that the cable hauls the at least one vehicle when the at least one vehicle is running in the running zone (Fig. 1, ¶ 23 the fastening preferably taking place by means of cable clamps 6), —.
Pfeifer ‘290 fails to teach, — wherein the cableway installation is provided with a rotary encoder connected to pulse generator to provide pulses according to a travel of the cable for moving the at least one vehicle, and calculating the variable from said pulses; comparing the variable with a threshold representative of a length of the running zone; and transmitting a malfunction signal when the variable has reached the threshold.
In analogous art, Tarassoff teaches, — wherein the cableway installation is provided with a rotary encoder (Fig. 1. detector 24,) connected to pulse generator to provide pulses (Fig. 1. Col. 4. Lin. 18-21 detector 24, supplying a pulse 25) according to a travel of the cable for moving the at least one vehicle (Fig. 1. Col. 4. Lin. 18-21 supplying a pulse 25 each time a carriage passes its location), and calculating the variable from said pulses (Fig. 1. Col. 4. Lin. 64 controller 23 detects a deviation); comparing the variable with a threshold representative of a length of the running zone (Fig. 1. Claim 3 predetermined spacing between successive carriages); and transmitting a malfunction signal when the variable has reached the threshold (Fig. 1. Claim 3 alarm means upon detection of a less than predetermined spacing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeifer ‘290 by combining the method performed by the cableway installation detection taught by Pfeifer ‘290 with a method performed by a cableway installation detection, wherein the cableway installation is provided with a rotary encoder connected to pulse generator to provide pulses according to a travel of the cable for moving the at least one vehicle, and calculating the variable from said pulses; comparing the variable with a threshold representative of a length of the running zone; and transmitting a malfunction signal when the variable has reached the threshold; taught by Tarassoff for the benefit of monitoring a cableway installation without the risk of collision and without the vehicles stopping [Tarassoff: Col. 1, Ln. 40-44 improve the abovementioned rhythm device with a view to reducing its operations and to achieve an installation with a high capacity without the risk of collision between the cars and without the latter stopping].
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeifer et al (US 2022/0169290 A1) (herein after Pfeifer ‘290) in view of Pfeifer et al (US 2021/0024110 A1) (herein after Pfeifer ‘110), and further in view of Tarassoff (5,105,745) (herein after Tarassoff).
Regarding Claim 18, Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 teaches the limitations of claim 17, which this claim depends on.
Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 fails to teach, the monitoring device of a cableway installation according to claim 17, comprising a measuring device configured to provide pulses according to the travel of the cable, and wherein the calculator calculates the variable from the pulses.
In analogous art, Tarassoff teaches, the monitoring device of a cableway installation according to claim 17, comprising a measuring device configured to provide pulses according to the travel of the cable (Fig. 1. Col. 4. Lin. 18-21 a signal, supplied by a detector 24, supplying a pulse 25 each time a carriage passes its location), and wherein the calculator calculates the variable from the pulses (Fig. 1. Col. 4. Lin. 64 controller 23 only detects a deviation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 by combining the monitoring device of a cableway installation taught by Pfeifer ‘290 in view of Pfeifer ‘110 with a device comprising, a measuring device configured to provide pulses according to the travel of the cable, and wherein the calculator calculates the variable from the pulses; taught by Tarassoff for the benefit of monitoring a cableway installation without the risk of collision and without the vehicles stopping [Tarassoff: Col. 1, Ln. 40-44 improve the abovementioned rhythm device with a view to reducing its operations and to achieve an installation with a high capacity without the risk of collision between the cars and without the latter stopping].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thum (US 2008/0208519 A1) teaches, a monitoring device of a cableway installation (Fig. 1, ¶ 85 transportation system 10, there is provided a cable position monitoring device)
Pearson (4,003,314) teaches, a monitoring device of a cableway installation (Fig. 1, Col 5, Lin 48-49 various automatic safety, manual and condition sensing switches described with respect to FIGS. 1)
Frohlich et al. (5,528,219) a monitoring device of a cableway installation (Fig. 1, Col 4, Lin 32-34 each tower interface unit 4 local to, or mounted on, a tower 8 monitors eight sheave support vibration sensors 12).
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 JOSEPH O. NYAMOGO whose telephone number is (469)295-9276. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 A to 5:00 P CT.
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, EMAN ALFAKAWI can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/JOSEPH O. NYAMOGO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 2/6/2026