Detailed Action
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 .
This action is non-final. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined as amended in the May 28, 2026 claim listing entered with the July 22, 2026 RCE.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement filed April 6, 2023 has been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed October 30, 2025 has been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed May 28, 2026 has been considered.
References Used
Reference 1: WO 2021/214035 A1
Reference 2: US 2011/0126731 A1
Reference 3: US 4,563,955 A
Reference 4: US 2018/0029613 A1
Reference 5: US 2009/0032585 A1
Reference 6: US 2016/0207542 A1
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1.
Claim 1
A circular cableway having at least two cableway stations and a plurality of cableway vehicles movable between the cableway stations by a conveyor cable, each of the cableway stations having at least one boarding/alighting area that is delimited in a conveying direction by an entry zone and by an exit zone, the circular cableway further comprising: at least one pair of opposing safety barriers in at least one of the entry zone or the exit zone of at least one boarding/alighting area, each of the pair of opposing safety barriers arranged opposite one another transversely to the conveying direction and which can be displaced from a closed position to an open position; and at least one detection device configured to detect i) people that are in a passage area, the passage area located between the pair of opposing safety barriers and through which passage area the cableway vehicles may pass, and/or ii) a displacement of at least one of the pair of opposing safety barriers from the closed position to the open position; wherein the passage area for cableway vehicles passing through is formed between the safety barriers and wherein two movable parts of two opposite safety barriers face one another.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses a cableway S having cableway stations 1 and multiple cable cars F moved by traction cable 12. Reference 1 expressly identifies circulating cableways, chairs and gondolas, coupling and uncoupling in a station 1, passenger entry and exit areas, pulley wheel 13, cableway drive 5, and control unit 4. The cableway arrangement therefore teaches the recited circular cableway, at least two stations, multiple cableway vehicles, conveyor cable, and boarding/alighting station environment.
Reference 1 discloses one or more openable safety barriers 2 in safety-relevant regions of station 1, including a safety barrier 2 in the vehicle exit area. The exit-area safety barrier 2 is used as a guide contour for cable cars F. Its shape may be substantially complementary to the outer contour of cars F, and cars F pass the safety barrier 2 with the smallest possible transverse distance without actuating the barrier. Reference 1 further explains that the closed position is the normal position in which unrestricted cableway operation is possible, whereas contact by a protruding door, object, or person moves the barrier 2 from the closed position to an open position. Thus, Reference 1 teaches a movable safety barrier located transversely adjacent the vehicle path, a closed operating position, an open displaced position, and a vehicle passage alongside the closed barrier.
Reference 1 further discloses multiple safety barriers 2 and assigns sensor 3 to each barrier 2. The express use of one or more barriers 2, together with the guide-contour purpose of detecting laterally protruding hazards, would have made it an obvious and predictable arrangement to duplicate the exit-area guide barrier 2 on the opposite lateral side of the same car path. The two duplicated barriers would be mounted opposite one another transversely to the conveying direction, their inwardly directed movable guide portions would face one another, and the preexisting path through which cars F pass would be formed between them. This bilateral arrangement does not change the operation of barrier 2; each barrier performs the same guide and hazard-detection function on a respective side of car F and provides the predictable result of monitoring hazards that protrude from either side.
Reference 1 discloses sensor 3 detecting movement of safety barrier 2 from the closed state to the open state and transmitting sensor signal Y to control unit 4. Claim 1 permits the detection device to detect people in the passage area, displacement of a safety barrier, or both. Reference 1 therefore satisfies the expressly recited displacement-detection alternative without requiring a separate person-detection teaching for claim 1.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the movable guide-contour safety barrier 2 of Reference 1 and mount the duplicate on the opposite lateral side of the cable-car path, with the inward movable portions facing one another across the path, to detect protruding doors, objects, or persons on either side of car F rather than on only one side. The modification uses the same disclosed barrier for the same disclosed function on the second of the vehicle's two lateral sides, retains the vehicle clearance and normal closed-position operation taught by Reference 1, and predictably improves bilateral safety coverage.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1.
Claim 2
The circular cableway according to claim 1, wherein at least one part of the at least one detection device is integrated in at least one of the pair of opposing safety barriers or on a stationary building part of the respective cableway station.
Analysis
Claim 2 includes every limitation of claim 1, addressed above. Reference 1 discloses sensor 3 arranged directly in the region of safety barrier 2 and identifies mechanical contact, inductive, capacitive, light-barrier, laser, magnetic, and ultrasonic implementations. Reference 1 also discloses stationary camera 10 positioned in station 1 with barrier 2 in capture range A and evaluation unit 11 evaluating the captured images. These alternatives teach that at least part of the detection device may be supported at the barrier itself or mounted on a stationary station structure overlooking the barrier region.
The claimed alternatives are stated disjunctively. The barrier-associated sensor 3 and the stationary camera 10 each provide the claimed placement while preserving the barrier-state detection and cableway control taught by Reference 1.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to select the barrier-mounted sensor 3 or stationary camera 10 expressly taught by Reference 1 according to the installation location, weather exposure, wiring, and desired field of view, because Reference 1 presents those arrangements as interchangeable ways to monitor the same barrier state.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 3
The circular cableway according to claim 2, wherein the at least one part of the at least one detection device arranged on a stationary building part of the respective cableway station is configured laterally below or above a cableway vehicle located in the passage area.
Analysis
Claim 3 includes the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Reference 1 provides the cableway, opposing duplicated guide barriers, vehicle passage, and stationary camera option discussed above, but does not expressly fix the stationary sensor laterally below or above the vehicle.
Reference 2 discloses a railway station detection device 1 having emitters 8 and sensors 9 positioned on stationary station structure around vehicle line 2. Sensors 9 are arranged under platform shoulder 6, and emitter 8 may be mounted in roof 11 above the line. Reference 2 also discloses sensors 9 fixed to wall 11 opposite platform 3. Beams 10 cross the vehicle region to detect a person or object. These placements teach stationary detector parts laterally below or above a vehicle occupying the monitored passage.
Applying Reference 2's above- or below-vehicle sensor placement to the stationary detector option of Reference 1 would preserve an unobstructed sensing path across the monitored vehicle corridor while keeping sensing hardware away from the movable barrier members.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to position the stationary detector of Reference 1 below or above the cableway vehicle as taught by Reference 2, to provide an unobstructed sensing path through the monitored vehicle corridor, keep the detector clear of the moving barrier members, and predictably detect a person or object in the passage area.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1.
Claim 4
The circular cableway according to claim 1, wherein the at least one detection device further comprises at least one of: at least one first sensor unit configured to generate or interrupt a first sensor signal when a person is detected in the passage area; or at least one second sensor unit provided on at least one of the pair of opposing safety barriers and configured to generate or interrupt a second sensor signal when the safety barrier is displaced from the closed position to the open position.
Analysis
Claim 4 includes every limitation of claim 1. Reference 1 discloses sensor 3 assigned to safety barrier 2. Sensor 3 detects the open position produced when barrier 2 is displaced from its normal closed position and generates or interrupts sensor signal Y for control unit 4. Reference 1 identifies a contact switch whose electrical contact is interrupted when barrier 2 opens, as well as inductive, capacitive, magnetic, light, laser, and ultrasonic alternatives.
Claim 4 requires at least one of the two listed sensor-unit alternatives. Reference 1 directly teaches the second alternative: a sensor unit provided at the safety barrier and configured to generate or interrupt a signal when the barrier is displaced from closed to open.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 1's barrier-associated contact or proximity sensor 3 as the claimed second sensor unit because it performs the same disclosed function of changing signal Y when the barrier moves from its normal closed state to an open state.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 5
The circular cableway according to claim 4, wherein the at least one first sensor unit comprises at least one of an optical sensor or a motion detector.
Analysis
Claim 5 includes the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Reference 1 supplies the cableway, barrier-displacement sensor, and control arrangement discussed above. Reference 2 discloses person and object detection in monitored vehicle area 5 using detection device 7, emitters 8, sensors 9, and beams 10. A person or object interrupts or masks beam 10, and sensor 9 sends the resulting signal to detection calculator 13.
The emitter 8 and sensor 9 arrangement is an optical beam sensor and detects movement or presence through beam interruption. It therefore teaches the claimed first sensor unit comprising at least an optical sensor, which is one of the alternatives recited in claim 5.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to add the optical person-detection device 7 of Reference 2 to the vehicle-passage region monitored by Reference 1, to distinguish a person or object occupying the passage from ordinary barrier-state events and to provide the predictable safety benefit of direct passage occupancy detection.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 6
The circular cableway according to claim 5, wherein the optical sensor comprises at least one of a light barrier, a light curtain, or a light grid, and wherein the motion detector comprises at least one of an infrared sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, or a sound sensor.
Analysis
Claim 6 includes the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 5. Reference 2 discloses emitters 8 producing infrared or radio beams 10 and associated sensors 9 detecting those beams. Interruption of the beam by a person or object produces a masked signal sent to detection calculator 13. The paired emitter and receiver forms a light barrier when infrared radiation is used, and the disclosed infrared and radio sensing alternatives respectively provide infrared and electromagnetic sensing.
Using Reference 2's infrared light-barrier or radio-beam detector in the person-detection branch of the cableway system provides the claimed optical and motion-detection implementations with the same predictable occupancy-detection function.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to implement the added person detector using the infrared light-barrier or radio-beam alternatives taught by Reference 2, because those known sensor types perform the same beam-interruption detection function and permit selection according to environmental and installation conditions.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1.
Claim 7
The circular cableway according to claim 4, wherein the at least one second sensor unit comprises an electric switch.
Analysis
Claim 7 includes the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Reference 1 expressly identifies a mechanical contact switch as sensor 3 for safety barrier 2. Opening barrier 2 interrupts the switch contact and produces sensor signal Y for control unit 4. The contact switch is an electric switch and directly provides the claimed second sensor unit.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the electric contact-switch implementation expressly taught by Reference 1 for sensor 3, to obtain a simple and reliable change of electrical state when barrier 2 is displaced.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1.
Claim 8
The circular cableway according to claim 4, further comprising a drive device for driving the cableway vehicles and a control unit for controlling the drive device and wherein the control unit is configured to receive at least one of the first sensor signal or the second sensor signal and to adjust control of the drive device at least in part as a function of at least one of the first sensor signal or second sensor signal.
Analysis
Claim 8 includes the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Reference 1 discloses cableway drive 5 for driving pulley wheel 13 and traction cable 12, and control unit 4 connected to drive 5. Sensor 3 transmits sensor signal Y representing the state of barrier 2 to control unit 4. Control unit 4 processes signal Y and changes operation of cableway drive 5 as a function of that signal.
These components directly teach a drive device, a control unit controlling the drive device, receipt of the recited sensor signal, and adjustment of drive control based on the signal.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to connect barrier sensor 3 to control unit 4 and drive 5 as expressly taught by Reference 1, so that a detected safety-barrier event automatically changes cableway operation instead of relying solely on operator observation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1.
Claim 9
The circular cableway according to claim 8, wherein the control unit is configured to stop the drive device or to reduce a conveying speed of the cableway vehicles when at least one of the first or the second sensor signals is received or interrupted.
Analysis
Claim 9 includes the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 8. Reference 1 discloses that control unit 4 triggers an emergency stop of cableway drive 5 when sensor signal Y indicates that a safety barrier 2 has opened. Reference 1 further discloses reducing drive speed instead of completely stopping in a less critical area. Reference 1 therefore directly teaches both alternatives recited in claim 9: stopping the drive or reducing vehicle conveying speed in response to receipt or interruption of the barrier sensor signal.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to stop drive 5 or reduce its speed in response to barrier signal Y as expressly taught by Reference 1, selecting the response according to the severity of the monitored station region and thereby reducing injury risk while avoiding an unnecessary full stop in a less critical condition.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3.
Claim 10
The circular cableway according to claim 8, wherein at least one of the at least two cableway stations comprises an auxiliary drive operable to move cableway vehicles uncoupled from the conveyor cable from the entry zone to the exit zone and wherein the drive device comprises a first drive unit configured to drive the conveyor cable and a second drive unit for the auxiliary drive.
Analysis
Claim 10 includes the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 8. Reference 1 discloses that cars F may be uncoupled from traction cable 12 on entry into station 1 and moved through the station at a lower speed independently of traction cable 12. Reference 1 identifies a known friction drive for moving the uncoupled cars and explains that control unit 4 controls both cableway drive 5 and the movement of uncoupled cars within station 1.
Reference 3 provides the detailed auxiliary-drive structure. Chairs 14 are uncoupled from continuously running cable 10 by detachable grip 17 and travel through the station on transfer support rail 18. Friction wheels 22 and 24 drive and accelerate the uncoupled carriage 26, and transfer chain 28 with push fingers 30 moves carriage 26 through the station. These station drive elements are separate from the main cable drive and teach the claimed second drive unit for the auxiliary drive.
Incorporating the expressly disclosed Reference 3 station-transfer drive into Reference 1's uncoupled low-speed station movement provides a first unit driving the conveyor cable and a second unit driving uncoupled vehicles from the entry region toward the exit region.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the friction wheels 22 and 24 and transfer chain 28 of Reference 3 as the separate auxiliary station drive for the uncoupled cars expressly contemplated by Reference 1, to move uncoupled vehicles through the boarding/alighting station at a controlled lower speed independently of the main conveyor cable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 11
The circular cableway according to claim 8, wherein the control unit is configured to deactivate the first sensor unit or to ignore the first sensor signal when a cableway vehicle is located in the passage area.
Analysis
Claim 11 includes the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 8. Reference 1 provides the cableway, vehicle passage, sensor signal, drive, and control unit discussed above. Reference 2 discloses detection calculator 13 receiving signals from person/object sensors 9 at input ports 12. When vehicle V enters station 3 and interrupts beams 10, calculator 13 changes the affected input ports 12 from activated to deactivated so that the vehicle does not generate a false person/object alarm or station-prohibited signal.
Reference 2 therefore directly teaches deactivating a detection channel or ignoring its signal while a vehicle occupies the monitored passage. Applying that false-trigger suppression to Reference 1's control unit 4 allows the cable car itself to pass through the bilateral barrier corridor without being treated as a person intrusion.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to deactivate or ignore the passage sensor while a known cableway vehicle occupies the corridor as taught by Reference 2, to prevent the vehicle itself from producing a false person-detection event while retaining detection before and after vehicle passage.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1.
Claim 12
The circular cableway according to claim 4, further comprising an alarm unit connected with at least one of the first sensor unit or the second sensor unit, and wherein the alarm unit is configured to generate an alarm signal when at least one of the first sensor signal or the second sensor signal is received or interrupted.
Analysis
Claim 12 includes the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Reference 1 discloses alarm unit 8 connected directly to sensor 3 or indirectly through control unit 4. Alarm unit 8 generates an optical or acoustic alarm when sensor signal Y indicates that safety barrier 2 has moved to the open position. Reference 1 therefore teaches the recited alarm-unit connection and generation of an alarm in response to receipt or interruption of the barrier sensor signal.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to connect alarm unit 8 to sensor 3 or control unit 4 as expressly taught by Reference 1, to provide operating personnel and passengers with immediate optical or acoustic notice of a barrier-open safety condition.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1.
Claim 13
The circular cableway according to claim 1, wherein at least one cableway vehicle comprises at least one of a chair or a cabin for accommodating a plurality of people.
Analysis
Claim 13 includes every limitation of claim 1. Reference 1 expressly states that cable cars F may be chairs or gondolas used to transport people between stations. A gondola is a cabin, and the depicted and described passenger vehicles accommodate multiple people. Reference 1 therefore directly teaches the claimed chair-or-cabin vehicle alternative.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the chair or gondola passenger vehicles expressly identified by Reference 1, selecting the vehicle type according to passenger capacity, weather protection, and route requirements while retaining the same circulating cableway operation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 4.
Claim 14
The circular cableway according to claim 1, wherein each pair of opposing safety barriers comprises an interior safety barrier and further comprising a first structural separation between an interior safety barrier of the entry zone and an interior safety barrier of the exit zone that is configured to block access from the boarding/alighting area to a prohibited area of the respective cableway station.
Analysis
Claim 14 includes every limitation of claim 1. Reference 1 discloses multiple safety barriers 2 in entry and exit regions and a barrier 2 adjacent operation room 9 that separates the passenger-accessible entry/exit area from an area to which unauthorized persons may not enter. The duplicated guide-barrier arrangement discussed for claim 1 provides an interior member of each opposing pair.
Reference 4 discloses aerial cableway cars 1, unloading area 5, loading area 6, delimited passenger areas 8, and barriers 12 extending along the sides of the delimited passenger areas. Restrictors 9 and 11 and side barriers 12 define and preserve the intended passenger route while excluding improper entry.
Connecting the interior members of the entry- and exit-zone barrier pairs with a structural separation in the manner taught by side barriers 12 would create a continuous boundary between the boarding/alighting area and the prohibited interior station region. The resulting structure performs the same passenger-routing and unauthorized-access-blocking function taught by both references.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to extend a structural separation between the interior members of the entry- and exit-zone barrier pairs using the side-barrier arrangement 12 of Reference 4, to create a continuous boundary that routes passengers through the intended boarding/alighting region and blocks access to the prohibited interior station area.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 4.
Claim 15
The circular cableway according to claim 1, wherein each pair of opposing safety barriers comprises an exterior safety barrier and further comprising a second structural separation between an exterior safety barrier of the entry zone and an exterior safety barrier of the exit zone that is configured to at least partially block access from the boarding/alighting area to a surrounding area of the respective cableway station, and a transit area in the second structural separation that is configured to connect the boarding/alighting area to the surrounding area.
Analysis
Claim 15 includes every limitation of claim 1. Reference 1 discloses entry and exit station regions, passenger-accessible areas, restricted areas, and multiple safety barriers 2. The duplicated barrier arrangement discussed for claim 1 provides an exterior member of each opposing pair.
Reference 4 discloses delimited passenger areas 8 adjacent loading area 6. Barriers 12 form the lateral structural separations of each delimited area 8, while restrictors 9 and 11 define controlled passages between the surrounding passenger area, delimited area 8, and loading area 6. This arrangement teaches an exterior structural separation that blocks uncontrolled access while retaining a transit opening that connects surrounding and boarding regions.
Extending Reference 4's side barrier 12 between the exterior members of Reference 1's entry- and exit-zone barrier pairs provides the claimed second structural separation and transit area without changing the operation of either cableway system.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the side barriers 12 and controlled passages 9 and 11 of Reference 4 between the exterior members of Reference 1's entry- and exit-zone barrier pairs, to separate the boarding/alighting area from the surrounding station area while retaining a defined transit opening for orderly passenger movement.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 4 and further in view of Reference 5.
Claim 16
The circular cableway according to claim 15, further comprising at least one of: a barrier configured in the transit area of the respective cableway station and operable for selectively blocking and unblocking the transit area; and a second detection device configured to detect people in the transit area.
Analysis
Claim 16 includes the limitations of claims 1 and 15. References 1 and 4 provide the cableway, entry/exit barrier pairs, exterior structural separation, and transit opening discussed above.
Reference 5 discloses a ski-lift access gate having supports 2 and 2', movable flaps 7 and 7', motors 12 and 12', and control unit 14. Flaps 7 and 7' selectively close and open threshold 4. Reference 5 further discloses photoelectric barriers 10 and 10' mounted at the gate and configured to detect a patron passing through the threshold.
Installing the Reference 5 gate and photoelectric detector in Reference 4's controlled transit opening provides both expressly recited alternatives: a barrier selectively blocking and unblocking the transit area and a second detection device detecting people in that transit area.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to install the selectively driven flaps 7 and 7' and photoelectric patron detectors 10 and 10' of Reference 5 in Reference 4's controlled transit opening, to automate blocking and unblocking of that opening and reliably determine when a person is passing through it.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 4 and further in view of Reference 5.
Claim 17
The circular cableway according to claim 16, further comprising a reader configured to read a ticket and to control the barrier of the respective cableway station as a function of a validity of the ticket.
Analysis
Claim 17 includes the limitations of claims 1, 15, and 16. Reference 5 discloses RFID antennas/readers 6 and 6' connected to verification system 13. The system reads a patron's contactless ticket, verifies the access right, and directs flap control unit 14 and motors 12 and 12' to open flaps 7 and 7' when access is valid. The reader and verification system therefore control the transit barrier as a function of ticket validity exactly as recited.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to control the transit flaps using the RFID readers 6 and 6' and verification system 13 of Reference 5, to open the barrier automatically for a valid ticket and maintain the barrier closed when access is not authorized.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 6.
Claim 18
The circular cableway according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the pair of opposing safety barriers is movable and wherein the movable part of the safety barrier in the closed position is separated from a cableway vehicle in the passage area by a distance of less than 50 cm, measured transversely to the conveying direction.
Analysis
Claim 18 includes every limitation of claim 1. Reference 1 discloses movable guide-contour barrier 2 adjacent car F and teaches that car F passes barrier 2 with the smallest possible distance measured transversely to the direction of travel without actuating the barrier. Reference 1 therefore recognizes transverse vehicle-to-barrier clearance as a safety and operating parameter.
Reference 6 discloses movable protective wall 11 adjacent a passing rail vehicle and expressly teaches a vehicle-to-wall spacing of at least 5 cm and not more than 10 cm to prevent a person from being pinched in the gap. That entire range lies below the claimed 50 cm upper limit.
Applying Reference 6's recognized person-safety clearance to Reference 1's movable cable-car guide barrier would set the already minimized transverse gap to less than 50 cm, with the predictable result of preserving vehicle clearance while preventing a person from occupying or becoming trapped in the gap.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to set the transverse gap between Reference 1's movable guide barrier 2 and passing car F within the 5 cm to 10 cm safety range taught by Reference 6, to maintain noncontact vehicle passage while preventing a person from occupying or becoming pinched in the gap; the resulting distance is necessarily less than 50 cm.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1.
Claim 19
A method for operating the circular cableway according to claim 1, comprising the steps of: providing a drive device for driving the cableway vehicles and a control unit for controlling the drive device and wherein the control unit is operable to receive at least one signal from the at least one detection device; determining with the at least one detection device if: i) at least one of the safety barriers has been displaced from the closed position to the open position and/or ii) a person in the passage area has been detected; transmitting a detection signal from the at least one detection device to the control unit as a result of such determination; receiving the detection signal in the control unit and transmitting a control signal from the control unit to the drive device to stop operation of the drive device or reduce conveying speed of the cableway vehicles.
Analysis
Claim 19 incorporates the circular cableway of claim 1. Reference 1 discloses operation of cableway S with traction cable 12, cars F, drive 5, control unit 4, movable safety barrier 2, sensor 3, and sensor signal Y. For the reasons given for claim 1, duplicating the guide-contour barrier 2 on the opposite side of the car path produces the opposing pair and vehicle passage required by the incorporated apparatus.
During operation, Reference 1's sensor 3 determines whether barrier 2 has moved from its closed position to an open position and sends corresponding detection signal Y to control unit 4. Control unit 4 receives signal Y and issues control to stop cableway drive 5 or reduce its speed. Claim 19 joins barrier-displacement and person-detection alternatives with and/or; the disclosed barrier-displacement determination therefore satisfies the required determining step. The Reference 1 sequence directly teaches providing the drive and control unit, detecting the recited condition, transmitting the detection signal, receiving it at the control unit, and stopping or slowing the drive.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to operate the duplicated bilateral barrier arrangement using Reference 1's disclosed sensor-signal and drive-control sequence, because each duplicated barrier performs the same opening detection and causes the same stop-or-speed-reduction response, predictably extending the existing safety control to hazards on either side of the vehicle path.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1.
Claim 20
The method according to claim 19, further comprising the step of generating an alarm signal in response to the detection signal indicating that at least one of the safety barriers has been displaced from the closed position to the open position or a person has been detected in the passage area.
Analysis
Claim 20 includes every limitation of claim 19. Reference 1 discloses alarm unit 8 generating an optical or acoustic alarm signal when sensor signal Y indicates that safety barrier 2 has moved to the open position. The alarm may receive signal Y directly from sensor 3 or indirectly through control unit 4. Reference 1 therefore directly teaches generating an alarm in response to the detection signal indicating barrier displacement, one of the alternatives recited in claim 20.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to generate the optical or acoustic alarm taught by Reference 1 when the method detects barrier displacement, to alert operating personnel promptly to the same safety condition that causes the cableway drive to stop or slow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's May 28, 2026 response has been fully considered. The response is persuasive as to the prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 1 and 19 now state the person-detection and barrier-displacement functions as separate alternatives joined by and/or. The prior rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the prior combination of Reference 1 with the paired flaps of the access-control gate does not teach a vehicle passage formed between opposing safety barriers because the paired flaps close their pedestrian lane. Applicant further argues that shortening or repositioning those flaps would change the gate's principle of operation. Those arguments are responsive to the prior ground. The present action does not rely on the paired pedestrian flaps for independent claims 1 or 19 and therefore does not require alteration of a lane-closing access gate.
Reference 1 itself teaches the relevant cableway vehicle relationship. Safety barrier 2 may function as a guide contour having a shape substantially complementary to car F, and car F passes barrier 2 with the smallest possible transverse distance without actuating the barrier. Reference 1 further states that the closed position is the normal condition permitting unrestricted cableway operation. The relied-on vehicle passage therefore exists alongside the guide barrier while the barrier remains in its closed operating position; it is not created by opening a pedestrian gate.
Reference 1 also teaches one or more safety barriers 2, multiple barriers in the station, and a sensor 3 assigned to each barrier. The claimed bilateral arrangement differs by placing a duplicate of the same guide barrier on the opposite lateral side of the same vehicle path. A cable car has two lateral sides, and the protruding-door, object, and person hazards identified by Reference 1 may occur on either side. Mirroring the known guide barrier on the second side predictably extends the same contact and displacement detection to both sides. The preexisting cable-car path lies between the barriers, and the inward movable guide portions face one another. No operating principle is changed: each barrier continues to provide the guide-contour and hazard-trigger function taught by Reference 1.
The present rationale is not based on a per se rule that duplication is always obvious. The facts supply the reason for the duplication and placement: bilateral detection of the same identified lateral hazards around a vehicle that has two sides. The duplicated barrier performs the same function, produces the predictable result of two-sided coverage, and the record identifies no criticality or unexpected result attributable to using the second barrier.
Applicant also argues that the dependent claims are patentable through their dependence from claim 1. Each dependent claim has been reconsidered using the current dependency chain and the additional references identified immediately above that claim. Reference 2 supplies below- or above-vehicle person-detection sensors and deactivation of sensor inputs during vehicle passage; Reference 3 supplies the separate station auxiliary drive; Reference 4 supplies the cableway passenger-area structural separations; Reference 5 supplies the transit barrier, photoelectric person detector, and ticket-validity control; and Reference 6 supplies the sub-50-cm vehicle-to-barrier clearance. The added limitations therefore do not overcome the rejections for the reasons set forth for claims 2-18 and 20.
Claim Disposition
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 103: Claims 1-20.
Objected-to Claims: None.
Allowed Claims: None.
Conclusion
US 2021/0062567 A1 was not used because its amusement-ride loading gates and platforms do not disclose the claimed circular-cableway guide-barrier and drive-response relationship. US 2022/0055667 A1 was not used because it regulates cable-transport embarkation and vehicle occupancy but does not disclose the claimed opposing movable vehicle guide barriers. Neither reference improved the selected grounds.
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 3615
Prosecution Insights