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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 10/27/2025. Claims 1-12 were previously pending, of which claims 1 and 6 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 6-12, filed 10/27/2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, the amendments have rendered the objections moot. Therefore, the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously applied prior art does not appear to explicitly disclose the intermittent style of the busbar or the activation/deactivation of the busbar, as amended in claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Peyerl in combination with Morris did disclose these limitations, as mapped in the final office action below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and the reaching of the end of the busbar” should be “and reaching of the end of the busbar” since there was no prior reference to reaching the end. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peyerl et al. (US 2018/0229611 A1), hereinafter Peyerl, in view of Morris et al. (US 2014/0070767 A1), hereinafter Morris.
With respect to claim 1, Peyerl discloses a method for data communication between a cableway controller and at least one vehicle of a cableway, comprising the steps of:
wherein during operation of the cableway a current collector of the vehicle contacts a busbar by a movement of the vehicle, (see at least [0014] “the first charging coil moves with the mobile unit into the charging zone and the one or more capacitors are inductively charged.” [0018-0019] “the first element is a wiper or brush… The wiper can be positioned on the bottom of the mobile unit to allow for the first contact to make constant contact with the rail” Note: Wipers and brushes are types of current collectors.)
wherein the busbar extends in the direction of movement of the vehicle only along a part of a range of movement of the vehicle characterized in that a vehicle powerline modem of the vehicle is connected to the current collector, and a control powerline modem is connected to the busbar and the cableway controller, (see at least [0008] “the second element is a member, such as a rail, to which the first element makes contact, which comprises a material that allows for the transfer of electricity when contact is made” [0019-0020] “portions of the rail such that charge is transferred at select positions (e.g., base stations) of the rail… As used herein, “close proximity” means a proximity sufficient to allow for the transfer of electricity from the second element to the first element. Such proximity can be contactless or contact-based.” [0042] “the second element is located at a base station. Base stations can be located at any position where a mobile unit will move a first element into a close proximity to the one or more second elements to allow for the charging of the capacitors. In certain embodiments, base stations are at fixed positions such as in at the ends of ski lifts.”)
Peyerl discloses a cableway connection that provides a charge by connecting intermittent rails for the mobile unit as it connects, but does not explicitly disclose the transmission of data from the mobile unit and the activation and deactivation of the rail power output.
However, Morris teaches while the current collector contacts the busbar, a power line communication connection between the vehicle powerline modem and the control powerline modem is established via the busbar, via which connection vehicle data are transmitted between the vehicle and the cableway controller, (see at least [0155] “A control device in the vehicle can be used to transmit instructions to the charging station and/or the charging connection to establish an electrical connection between the charging connection and the vehicle.” [0085] “The vehicle may receive a signal when the contact plate on the vehicle makes contact with the contact pad or comes within a collector brace, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention”)
wherein the busbar is activated after the current collector has contacted the busbar in order to supply the vehicle with electrical energy, (see at least [0055] “The charging connection can be designed in such a fashion that it is only activated when an electrical connection is made between the vehicle and the charging station”)
wherein the busbar is deactivated before the connection between the current collector of the vehicle and the busbar is terminated by the movement of the vehicle, (see at least [0055] “The charging station can comprise mechanical and/or electrical protective devices to isolate conductive paths during non-contact situations.”)
and wherein between the time of deactivation of the busbar and the reaching of the end of the busbar, at which the contact between the current collector and the busbar is interrupted by the movement of the vehicle, the powerline communication to the cableway controller continues to take place by means of the vehicle powerline modems and the control powerline modem. (see at least [0159] “The vehicle may remain at the charging station for a period of time to achieve a desired state of charge within an energy storage system of the vehicle. In some embodiments, when charging is complete, the collector brushes may disengage and the connector head may lift vertically to a retracted state… The vehicle then may continue driving forward and depart the charging station.” Note: The status of the retraction of the connector head would need to be delivered to the vehicle so it would be able to depart without damaging the connector head.)
As both pertain to intermittent charging of user transport vehicles on a fixed course, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cableway charging system of Peyerl to include the charging station control method disclosed in Morris, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide protective devices to isolate conductive paths during non-contact situations, until initiated by contact from the transport vehicle, see Morris [0055].
With respect to claim 6, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 6 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claim 6 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peyerl as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Jaegle (DE 10 2017 219 219 A1), hereinafter Jaegle.
With respect to claim 2, Peyerl discloses an intermittent charging cableway, but does not explicitly disclose the transmission of vehicle data and control based on the data.
However, Jaegle teaches the step of controlling a consumer of the vehicle using vehicle data in the form of control data which are transmitted to the vehicle from the cableway controller via the powerline communication. ([0056] “generate a control signal 814 using user data 812 received via the user interface and to transmit it via the communication devices 804 to a control device 816 of the respective gondolas 106… In addition, the control unit 816 uses the satellite navigation signal 806 or the sensor signal 805 to control the drive unit.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intermittent cableway charging of Peyerl to include the data transmission disclosed in Jaegle, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide sensor data to the base station to regulate a distance between the gondolas, see Jaegle [0024,0060].
With respect to claim 3, Peyerl discloses an intermittent charging cableway, but does not explicitly disclose the transmission of vehicle data and control based on sensor data.
However, Jaegle teaches the step of controlling or monitoring the cableway with the cableway controller using vehicle data in the form of sensor data which are generated on the vehicle by a vehicle sensor and are transmitted between the vehicle and the cableway controller by means of the powerline communication. ([0020] “Reading in a satellite navigation signal and/or a sensor signal generated using at least one environmental sensor arranged on the gondola and/or on the suspension rail and/or a control signal generated using a central server device and/or a mobile terminal; and generating a control signal for controlling the drive unit”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intermittent cableway charging of Peyerl to include the data transmission disclosed in Jaegle, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide sensor data to the base station to regulate a distance between the gondolas, see Jaegle [0024,0060].
With respect to claim 5, Peyerl discloses an intermittent charging cableway, but does not explicitly disclose the transmission of vehicle data and control based on the data.
However, Jaegle teaches the step of supplying the vehicle with electrical energy at least temporarily via the busbar when the current collector is in contact with the busbar. ([0017] “a current collector arranged or arrangeable on the chassis frame for electrically contacting the conductor section” [0036] “The busbar part 206 comprises the conductor section 116” [0052] “The electrical energy is transmitted from the current collector 610 to the electric drive unit 608… The drive unit 608 generally comprises a suitable control unit with power electronics”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intermittent cableway charging of Peyerl to include the data transmission disclosed in Jaegle, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide sensor data to the base station to regulate a distance between the gondolas, see Jaegle [0024,0060].
With respect to claim 7, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 7 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 2; therefore, claim 7 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
With respect to claim 8, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 8 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 3; therefore, claim 8 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
With respect to claim 10, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 10 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 5; therefore, claim 10 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Claims 4, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peyerl in view of Morris, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Mitchell et al (US 2020/0106480 A1), hereinafter Mitchell.
With respect to claim 4, Peyerl discloses intermittent charging connection of a passenger vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose the disconnection in power during which the data is saved.
However, Mitchell teaches the steps of, storing the sensor data, during a period of time without contact between the current collector and the busbar, in a memory unit of the vehicle, ([0008] “The operations further include transmitting the functional health statuses, the power quality data, and the load management data to a data store.” [0037] “when disconnected from one or both the vehicle 120 and the ground power system 130, the connector 150 can obtain data from sensors… local storage (e.g., a memory or storage device within the connector 150) can be used while the connector is disconnected from the ground power system 130 in order to store pertinent data until a reconnection with the ground power system 130 occurs.”)
and transmitting the sensor data to the cableway controller from the memory unit via the vehicle powerline modem during a period of time with contact between the current collector and the busbar. ([0027] “Upon reconnection, some implementations then deliver of the locally stored data along with time stamps on what occurred while no data connection was available.”)
As both pertain to data collection and transmission of a passenger vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intermittent power connection of Peyerl to include the method of storing vehicle data locally during a loss of power disclosed in Mitchell, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for monitoring of the system regardless of connection to a ground power system so the pertinent data may be available upon reconnection, see Mitchell [0037].
With respect to claim 11, Peyerl discloses intermittent charging connection of a passenger vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose that sensor data is collected and stored with a time stamp.
However, Mitchell teaches the step of storing the sensor data further comprises storing the sensor data together with a time stamp of generation of the sensor data. ([0027] “Upon reconnection, some implementations then deliver of the locally stored data along with time stamps on what occurred while no data connection was available.”)
As both pertain to data collection and transmission of a passenger vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intermittent power connection of Peyerl to include the time stamp on the stored data disclosed in Mitchell, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for monitoring of the system regardless of connection to a ground power system so the pertinent data including the time of occurrence may be available upon reconnection, see Mitchell [0027, 0037].
With respect to claim 9, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 9 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 4; therefore, claim 9 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
With respect to claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 11, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 11; therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 11.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669