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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the French Republic on 06/27/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR 2206398 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “2d” within Fig.7 and “2c” within Fig.12.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
Within claim 5, line 5: “an height” should be “a height”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cable" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “wherein, in the first position, the additional platform is” after reciting within claim 1 that it is the “at least one shrouding movable between a first position and a second position,” (line 10), and “in the second position the at least one shrouding allows access to the moving device from the platform and the at least one shrouding forms an additional platform…and wherein the additional platform is arranged on the second side of the running path” (lines 17-21). These limitations within claim 1 describe the “additional platform” as being the result of the at least one shrouding being in the second position. Therefore, the limitations within claim 2 are unclear when referencing the additional platform in the first position. Examiner recommends changing this limitation to “in the first position, the at least one shrouding”. This rejection likewise applies to claims 3 and 8-10.
Claims 4-7 are likewise rejected due to their dependency upon a rejected claim.
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 1-3, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (EP 1405779 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Hofer teaches a terminal of an aerial transportation installation provided with at least one carrier vehicle, the terminal comprising:
- a moving device configured to drive the at least one carrier vehicle in the terminal, the moving device defining a running path of the at least one carrier vehicle in the terminal, the moving device comprising a plurality of moving parts designed to move said at least one carrier vehicle in the terminal (apparent from Fig.1);
- a platform arranged on a first side of the running path, the platform being configured to allow an operator to move alongside the moving device and to enable him/her to perform maintenance operations on the moving device (1: Fig.2);
- at least one shrouding (top of 5; Fig.2) device and prevent access to the moving device from the platform (5 covering drive wheels Fig.2),
Hofer teaches the claimed invention except for the top of the shrouding being separable into a second position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the top of shrouding separable into a second position, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding claim 2: Hofer further teaches the terminal according to claim 1 wherein, in the first position, the additional platform is at least partially arranged on the first side with respect to the running path (steps of 5; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 3: Hofer further teaches the terminal according to claim 2 wherein, in the first position, the additional platform is arranged mainly on the first side with respect to the running path (steps of 5; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 8: Hofer further teaches the terminal according to claim 1 wherein, in the first position, the additional platform forms the at least one shrouding (5 covering drive wheels; Fig.2).
Regarding claim 10: Hofer further teaches a method for performing maintenance of a terminal of an aerial transportation installation comprising the following steps:
- providing a terminal according to claim 1 (Fig.2);
- moving the additional platform (5; Fig.2) from the first position (Fig.2)
Hofer teaches the claimed invention except for the top of the shrouding being separable into a second position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the top of shrouding separable into a second position, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer and Coudurier et al. (US 20090050012 A1).
Regarding claim 9: Hofer teaches the terminal according to claim 1 including the additional platform (5; Fig.2) in a first position (Fig.2). Hofer does not teach the additional platform being mounted rotatable into a second position.
However, Coudurier teaches the use of a hinged platform being mounted rotatable into a second position (31; Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the terminal of Hofer to include the additional platform having a hinge to rotate the platform to improve access to the terminal components underneath for effective maintenance with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the dependent claims 4-7.
More specifically, the prior art fails to teach in the second position, the additional platform is arranged in a space designed to be occupied by the grip as claimed within claim 4. There is no suggestion to modify the terminal of Hofer to include an obstructing platform and combining this feature would change the principal of operation of the reference.
The prior art fails to teach a roof panel and wherein the roof panel defines a supplementary platform designed to support the operator, the supplementary platform being offset from the additional platform in a first direction perpendicular to the running path of said at least one carrier vehicle, the supplementary platform being located at a lower height than an height of the additional platform and offset to arrange the additional platform between a plurality of wheels forming the plurality of moving parts and supplementary platform so that the additional platform forms a work surface as claimed within claim 5. It would require an improper level of hindsight to combine these features in the specific orientation with the prior art as claimed.
Further, the prior art fails to teach wherein the additional platform is formed by a first plate and a second plate, the second plate being fitted movable with respect to the first plate, the second plate being fitted movable between a protection position and a retracted position, wherein in the protection position the second plate extends upwards from the first plate and wherein in the retracted position the second plate is pressing against the first plate as claimed within claim 7. It would require an improper level of hindsight to combine these features in the specific orientations with the prior art as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615