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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/06/23 and 10/30/25 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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.
ISSUE 1 — AMBIGUOUS SCOPE OF THE “DETECTION DEVICE” FUNCTIONALITY (CLAIMS 1–20)
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “at least one detection device for detecting people in a passage area located between the pair of opposing safety barriers and through which the cableway vehicles may pass or when one of the pair of opposing safety barriers is displaced from the closed position to the open position.” The above language renders the metes and bounds of claim 1 unclear because it is not reasonably clear what the “or when” clause modifies and, correspondingly, what the “at least one detection device” is required to detect. In particular, the claim language does not clearly set forth whether the detection device is required to:
(1) detect people in the passage area (and nothing more);
(2) detect displacement of a safety barrier from closed to open (even though displacement is not “people”);
(3) detect people in the passage area only during/when a safety barrier is displaced (i.e., a conditional detection mode); or
(4) perform both functions, i.e., detect people in the passage area and detect barrier displacement.
Additionally, the phrase “and through which the cableway vehicles may pass or when one of the pair…” creates further ambiguity because it is grammatically unclear whether the “or when” clause is describing the passage area, describing when vehicles may pass, or describing a separate detection condition. As drafted, the scope of the “detection device” limitation is not ascertainable with reasonable certainty.
Claim 19 is expressly limited to “a method for operating the circular cableway according to claim 1” and thus also incorporates the indefinite subject matter of claim 1. Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and similarly incorporates the indefinite subject matter.
ISSUE 2 — LACK OF CLEAR ANTECEDENT BASIS / AMBIGUITY REGARDING “THE CABLEWAY STATION” (CLAIMS 2, 3, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Claim 1 introduces “at least two cableway stations.” Claims 2, 3, 10, 14, 15, 16, and 17 each recite features in relation to “the cableway station” (singular), for example “on a stationary building part of the cableway station” (claim 2), and “wherein the cableway station comprises an auxiliary drive…” (claim 10). Because claim 1 establishes that there are at least two distinct cableway stations, it is unclear from the recitations “the cableway station” whether the limitation is intended to apply to:
(1) each of the cableway stations;
(2) only one of the cableway stations; or
(3) some subset (but not all) of the cableway stations.
This ambiguity affects the scope of these dependent claims. The use of “the cableway station” without a clear antecedent basis and without clarifying “which” station (or whether all stations) fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
ISSUE 3 — AMBIGUOUS BASIS FOR THE “DISTANCE … LESS THAN 50 CM” MEASUREMENT (CLAIM 18)
Claim 18 recites, in relevant part, that “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.”
The claim does not specify how the “distance” is measured (e.g., laterally, transversely to conveying direction, horizontal, vertical, minimum clearance, centerline-to-centerline, etc.). As a result, the scope is unclear because different measurement conventions could yield materially different results for the same physical installation.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, the phrase “at last one” appears to be a typographical error and should be corrected (e.g., “at least one”).
In claim 11, the preamble “according claim 8” appears to be a typographical error and should be corrected (e.g., “according to claim 8”).
In claim 19, the phrase “at least on detection device” appears to be a typographical error and should be corrected (e.g., “at least one detection device”).
In claim 20, the phrase “at least of the safety barriers” appears to be a typographical error and should be corrected (e.g., “at least one of the safety barriers”). Appropriate correction is required.
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
REFERENCE 1
WO 2021/214035 A1 (published October 28, 2021) (“Cableway station having a safety barrier”).
REFERENCE 2
EP 1 990 777 A2 (published November 12, 2008) (“Access control gate”).
REFERENCE 3
US 4,563,955 A (published January 14, 1986) (“Chairlift or gondola lift including friction drive wheels”).
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 1–9, 11–12, 14–18, AND 19–20: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
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 last 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 for detecting people in a passage area located between the pair of opposing safety barriers and through which the cableway vehicles may pass or when one of the pair of opposing safety barriers is displaced from the closed position to the open position.
CLAIM 1 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
With respect to “a circular cableway having at least two cableway stations and a plurality of cableway vehicles movable between the cableway stations by a conveyor cable,” Reference 1 discloses a recirculating cableway including cableway stations (1a, 1b) and a plurality of cableway vehicles (F) movable between the stations by a delivery wire rope (12), which corresponds to the claimed conveyor cable.
With respect to “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,” Reference 1 discloses that each station includes at least one pick-up and/or drop-off area (i.e., a boarding/alighting area), and further discloses that the area is delimited in the transit direction by an entrance area for the cableway vehicle driving in and an exit area for the cableway vehicle driving out, corresponding to the claimed entry zone and exit zone.
With respect to “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,” Reference 1 discloses at least one openable safety barrier (2) arranged in an exit region of a cableway station and displaceable from a closed position to an open position, thereby teaching use of a safety barrier in a station zone associated with vehicle movement through a passenger area boundary.
However, Reference 1 does not explicitly describe the safety barrier as a “pair of opposing safety barriers arranged opposite one another transversely to the conveying direction” with a defined passage area between the pair. Reference 2 teaches this specific opposing-barrier arrangement. In particular, Reference 2 discloses two motor driven flaps (7, 7’) protruding from left and right lane boundaries into the lane, thereby forming a closed gate threshold (4). The flaps (7, 7’) are arranged opposite one another across (i.e., transversely to) the lane direction and are displaceable from a closed position to an open position (swinging out of the lane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cableway station of Reference 1 to employ, in at least one of the entry zone and/or exit zone of the boarding/alighting area, a pair of opposing safety barriers arranged opposite one another transversely to the conveying direction (as taught by the opposing flaps (7, 7’) of Reference 2), because Reference 2 teaches that an opposing barrier arrangement provides a clear, mechanically guided, automatically controllable closure of a passageway and improves controlled access and safety at high-throughput transportation entrance areas, explicitly including ski lift entrances.
With respect to “at least one detection device for detecting people in a passage area located between the pair of opposing safety barriers,” Reference 2 teaches third means to detect passage of patrons through the gate threshold (4), including two or more photoelectric barriers (e.g., photoelectric barriers (10, 10’)) whose detecting beams are directed to the lane zone behind the gate threshold (4), thereby detecting people passing through the area between the opposing flaps (7, 7’). Thus, Reference 2 teaches detecting people in a passage area between opposing safety barriers.
With respect to “and through which the cableway vehicles may pass,” Reference 1 teaches a cableway station environment where cableway vehicles (F) move along the station path and safety barrier(s) (2) are positioned in relation to vehicle movement at a station region (including an exit region where the cableway vehicle (F) is again coupled with the delivery wire (12)). It would have been obvious to configure the opposing safety barriers (7, 7’) (adapted from Reference 2) as laterally opposed barriers that define a passage area aligned with the vehicle travel path in the station of Reference 1, such that the vehicle (F) may pass through the passage area between the opposing barriers, because the same mechanical principle (defining a controlled corridor between opposed barrier members) applies to defining a controlled corridor adjacent the vehicle path to prevent person intrusion into the hazard envelope while allowing the vehicle to traverse the corridor.
With respect to “or when one of the pair of opposing safety barriers is displaced from the closed position to the open position,” Reference 1 teaches a sensor (3) configured to detect an opening state of the safety barrier (2) and generate a sensor signal (Y) as a function of the opening state. Reference 1 further teaches an embodiment where the sensor (3) can be a camera system (K) including at least one camera (10) and an evaluation unit (11), where the safety barrier (2) is arranged in a recording area (A) of the camera (10) and the evaluation unit (11) evaluates images to recognize the opening state and generate the sensor signal (Y). Reference 2 also teaches position sensing to detect open/closed positions of flaps (7, 7’). Therefore, the combined teachings provide at least one detection device that detects when one of the opposing safety barriers is displaced from closed to open.
Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 1 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the opposing safety barrier configuration and patron-detection sensors of Reference 2 (opposing flaps (7, 7’) and photoelectric barriers (10, 10’)) into the cableway station safety barrier system of Reference 1 (safety barrier (2) with sensor (3) providing sensor signal (Y) to control unit (4)) to improve automation and safety at a cableway station passenger area by (i) physically defining a controlled passage corridor bounded by opposed barrier members to deter or block improper entry, and (ii) reliably detecting people entering or traversing the corridor, which would predictably reduce hazards near moving cableway vehicles (F) and improve unattended or partially automated operation, consistent with the stated safety and operational goals of Reference 1 (automatic detection of safety barrier opening and associated safety responses) and Reference 2 (safe, controlled, high-throughput passage at ski lift entrances).
The circular cableway according to claim 1, wherein at least one part of the detection device is integrated in at least one of the pair of opposing safety barriers or on a stationary building part of the cableway station.
CLAIM 2 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
With respect to the additional limitation, “at least one part of the detection device is integrated in at least one of the pair of opposing safety barriers,” Reference 2 teaches that the gate configuration includes upright supports (2, 2’) at the gate threshold and that each flap (7) is mounted on a gear box (8, 8’), and the supports carry detection components such as photoelectric barriers and other gate electronics. This teaches integrating detection components with, and mounting detection components on, the barrier assembly (including the flap/hinge/support structures associated with the opposing barriers (7, 7’)).
With respect to “or on a stationary building part of the cableway station,” Reference 1 teaches a camera (10) positioned so that the safety barrier (2) is within the recording area (A) of the camera (10), and further teaches stationary and/or mobile remote control units (7a, 7b) associated with the station control room (9). The camera (10) and associated evaluation unit (11) are station-mounted components, corresponding to placement on a stationary building/stationary structure of the cableway station (1). Therefore, at least part of the detection device (camera (10), evaluation unit (11)) is arranged on a stationary building part of the station.
Accordingly, claim 2 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 2 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to integrate or station-mount portions of the detection device as taught by References 1 and 2 because station-mounted cameras/evaluation units (Reference 1: camera (10), evaluation unit (11)) and barrier-integrated detection components (Reference 2: barrier assembly with sensors and position detection) are well-suited for robust detection and reduce installation complexity, while improving reliability of hazard detection and barrier-state detection in a cableway station environment where physical mounting points and controlled sightlines are available.
The circular cableway according to claim 2, wherein the at least one part of the detection device arranged on a stationary building part of the cableway station is configured laterally below or above a cableway vehicle located in the passage area.
CLAIM 3 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
With respect to the additional limitation, Reference 2 teaches that gate components are mounted on upright supports (2, 2’) at the gate threshold left and right of each lane, and that the supports (2, 2’) are attached to an overhead gantry style beam (3). This teaches mounting sensor/reader/detection components laterally (left/right) and on overhead structures above the passage lane, and also teaches configuring detection beams of photoelectric barriers to detect passage through the threshold (4) at selected heights in the lane zone.
Applying this teaching to the station of Reference 1, it would have been obvious to configure at least one stationary-mounted part of the detection device (e.g., a camera (10) and/or photoelectric barrier components) laterally, below, or above the vehicle path, so that the detection coverage is positioned relative to a cableway vehicle (F) located in the passage area, because Reference 2 demonstrates that such laterally and/or overhead mounting locations provide consistent geometry and protected mounting while enabling reliable detection across a controlled corridor.
Accordingly, claim 3 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 3 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to mount detection components laterally and/or above (or, as appropriate, below) the vehicle path because Reference 2 teaches that lateral supports (2, 2’) and an overhead gantry beam (3) provide stable mounting locations for detection components aligned to a passage corridor, and this arrangement predictably improves detection reliability while reducing interference with ground operations and passenger movement, consistent with the safety-monitoring objectives of Reference 1.
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.
CLAIM 4 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
With respect to “at least one first sensor unit configured to generate or interrupt a first sensor signal when a person is detected in the passage area,” Reference 2 teaches third means to detect passage of patrons through the gate threshold (4) comprising two or more photoelectric barriers (e.g., photoelectric barriers (10, 10’)) whose detection beams detect patron passage through the threshold. Such photoelectric barriers inherently generate and/or interrupt a sensor signal (beam present vs. beam interrupted) when a person is detected in the passage corridor defined by the opposing flaps (7, 7’).
With respect to “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,” Reference 1 teaches a sensor (3) for detecting an opening state of the safety barrier (2) and generating a sensor signal (Y) as a function of the opening state, thereby teaching generating a signal when the barrier is displaced from closed to open. Reference 2 also teaches a position sensor to detect open and closed position of the flaps (7, 7’), which similarly generates a signal indicative of barrier movement/state.
Accordingly, claim 4 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 4 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include both (i) a person-detection sensor unit (Reference 2: photoelectric barriers (10, 10’)) and (ii) a barrier-state sensor unit (Reference 1: sensor (3) providing sensor signal (Y) based on opening state; Reference 2: position sensor for flaps) in the station of Reference 1 because combining person-presence detection with barrier-state detection provides complementary safety coverage, enabling more reliable hazard response (detecting both intrusion and barrier actuation), which is a predictable improvement for automated or semi-automated cableway station operations.
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.
CLAIM 5 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
Reference 2 teaches that the third means to detect passage comprises photoelectric barriers (10, 10’). Photoelectric barriers are optical sensors because they detect beam interruption by an object/person. Reference 1 also teaches that the sensor (3) may be a light barrier, further confirming optical sensing in the station safety context.
Accordingly, the first sensor unit of claim 4 can be implemented as an optical sensor (photoelectric barrier (10, 10’)/light barrier), meeting claim 5.
CLAIM 5 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use optical sensing for the first sensor unit because Reference 2 teaches photoelectric barriers (10, 10’) as a reliable means to detect passage through a controlled corridor, providing predictable performance for detecting people in a passage area while being compatible with station-mounted hardware arrangements as in Reference 1.
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.
CLAIM 6 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
With respect to “the optical sensor comprises at least one of a light barrier, a light curtain, or a light grid,” Reference 2 teaches photoelectric barriers (10, 10’), which are light barriers. Reference 1 likewise teaches that the sensor (3) may be a light barrier arranged in the area of the safety barrier (2). Therefore, the optical sensor comprises a light barrier as required by claim 6.
With respect to “the motion detector comprises at least one of an infrared sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, or a sound sensor,” Reference 1 teaches that the sensor (3) arranged in the area of the safety barrier (2) can be an inductive sensor (electromagnetic sensing) and/or an ultrasonic sensor (sound-based sensing). Thus, Reference 1 teaches using an electromagnetic sensor and/or a sound sensor as a sensor option associated with the safety barrier (2), which would have been an obvious selection for a motion-detection modality for detecting presence/motion in a passage area, particularly where beam-interruption sensing is supplemented with non-optical sensing to improve robustness in adverse conditions.
Accordingly, claim 6 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 6 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement the claimed sensor options because References 1 and 2 collectively teach that optical beam sensors (Reference 2: photoelectric barriers (10, 10’); Reference 1: light barrier option for sensor (3)) provide reliable passage detection, and Reference 1 further teaches that inductive (electromagnetic) and ultrasonic (sound-based) sensors may be used at the safety barrier (2) to detect relevant conditions. Selecting among these known sensor modalities would have been a predictable design choice to achieve robust detection in a cableway station environment.
The circular cableway according to claim 4, wherein the at least one second sensor unit comprises an electric switch.
CLAIM 7 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
Reference 1 teaches that the sensor (3) arranged in the area of the safety barrier (2) can be a mechanical contact switch. A mechanical contact switch, in the context of safety barrier state detection, is an electrical switch that changes electrical state upon actuation (contact open/close). Therefore, Reference 1 teaches the second sensor unit as an electric switch for detecting displacement/opening of a safety barrier (2).
Accordingly, claim 7 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 (and as further taught by Reference 1 alone for this limitation).
CLAIM 7 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use an electric contact switch as the barrier-state sensor because Reference 1 expressly identifies a mechanical contact switch as an appropriate sensor (3) for detecting the opening state of the safety barrier (2). An electric switch provides a simple, reliable, low-cost detection of barrier displacement, producing predictable signaling for control and alarm functions.
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.
CLAIM 8 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
Reference 1 teaches a cable car drive (5) and a control unit (4) associated with station operation. Reference 1 teaches that the sensor (3) generates a sensor signal (Y) as a function of the opening state of the safety barrier (2), and that the sensor signal (Y) is received by the control unit (4) to control the cable car drive (5), including stopping or reducing the speed when the safety barrier is detected in the open position. Thus, Reference 1 teaches a drive device (5), a control unit (4), receipt of a sensor signal (Y), and adjustment of drive operation based on that signal.
Reference 2 teaches first sensor units (photoelectric barriers (10, 10’)) that generate/interrupt a signal when a person passes through the gate threshold (4), and second sensor units (position sensors) detecting open/closed positions of the flaps (7, 7’). It would have been obvious to have the control unit (4) of Reference 1 receive the person-detection signal from the photoelectric barriers (10, 10’) (first sensor signal) and/or receive barrier-position signals (second sensor signal) and adjust control of the cable car drive (5) as a function of those signals, because doing so directly extends the known safety-response control logic of Reference 1 to additional, known safety-relevant inputs (person passage detection), providing predictable safety automation.
Accordingly, claim 8 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 8 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to configure the control unit (4) to receive person-detection and barrier-position signals because Reference 1 already teaches safety-state signaling (sensor signal (Y)) used by control unit (4) to adjust drive (5), and Reference 2 teaches robust sensors (photoelectric barriers (10, 10’) and flap position sensing) to detect passage and barrier state. Combining these teachings predictably improves safety response by enabling the drive to respond not only to barrier opening but also to detected intrusion/presence, which aligns with the automation and safety objectives of both references.
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.
CLAIM 9 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
Reference 1 teaches that, upon detection of the open position of the safety barrier (2) by the sensor (3), the control unit (4) stops the cable car drive (5) or reduces its speed, based on receipt of the sensor signal (Y). This teaches stopping or reducing conveying speed in response to a barrier-state signal (second sensor signal).
In view of Reference 2’s teaching of photoelectric barriers (10, 10’) that generate/interrupt a signal upon detection of a patron in the passage corridor behind the gate threshold (4), it would have been obvious to similarly stop or reduce the conveying speed of cableway vehicles (F) when the person-detection signal (first sensor signal) is received or interrupted, because that is a predictable extension of Reference 1’s safety control strategy: if the system reacts to barrier opening by stopping/reducing speed, it would also react to detected person presence/intrusion in the protected corridor to avoid injury or entanglement hazards.
Accordingly, claim 9 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 9 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to stop or slow the drive (5) based on the first sensor signal because Reference 2 teaches that photoelectric barriers (10, 10’) provide reliable detection of a person passing a threshold and because Reference 1 already teaches stopping or slowing in response to a detected unsafe condition (open safety barrier (2) detected by sensor (3)). Using the same safety response for detected person intrusion is a predictable safety enhancement.
The circular cableway according 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.
CLAIM 11 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
Reference 2 teaches that the photoelectric barriers detect the patron’s passage through the threshold (4) but mask/blank out unintentional detection of one of the sensors, and further teaches blanking out the unintentional screening of only one photoelectric barrier before the patron really could pass the threshold. This teaches the broader concept of selectively ignoring or disabling sensor outputs during expected, non-hazardous conditions to reduce false triggers.
Applying this teaching to the cableway station of Reference 1 as modified with the person-detection sensors of Reference 2, it would have been obvious to deactivate the first sensor unit (e.g., photoelectric barriers (10, 10’)) or ignore its signal during known times when a cableway vehicle (F) occupies the passage area, in order to prevent false detections caused by the vehicle itself and to ensure the control unit (4) acts only on true person intrusion/presence events. This is a predictable control refinement consistent with Reference 2’s teaching of suppressing unintended detections and consistent with Reference 1’s goal of safe, partially automated operation without unnecessary stoppages.
Accordingly, claim 11 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 11 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement sensor deactivation/ignore logic because Reference 2 teaches the desirability and feasibility of masking unintentional sensor detections to prevent erroneous barrier actions, and because, in a cableway station environment (Reference 1) with moving vehicles (F), preventing false-positive safety stops improves operational efficiency while maintaining safety. The modification yields predictable results: fewer nuisance stops while preserving safety-triggered control when actual persons are detected.
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.
CLAIM 12 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
Reference 1 expressly teaches an alarm unit (8) that, when the sensor signal (Y) corresponding to the open position is received, triggers a preferably optical or acoustic alarm signal. Reference 1 further teaches that the sensor signal (Y) can be transmitted directly to the alarm unit (8) or indirectly via the control unit (4) which receives the sensor signal (Y), and further teaches that a signal lamp may be provided. Thus, Reference 1 teaches an alarm unit connected (directly or indirectly) to the sensor (3) and configured to generate an alarm signal upon receiving the sensor signal (Y) indicative of a barrier open state (second sensor signal).
In view of Reference 2’s teaching of a first sensor signal generated/interrupted by photoelectric barriers (10, 10’) upon detection of a patron in the passage corridor, it would have been obvious to additionally connect such first sensor unit to the alarm unit (8) (directly or via the control unit (4)) and generate an alarm when a person is detected in the corridor, because this is a predictable extension of Reference 1’s alarm strategy from barrier-open events to person-presence events, providing improved safety awareness to operators and passengers.
Accordingly, claim 12 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 12 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to generate alarm outputs for both barrier-state and person-presence detections because Reference 1 teaches alarms (alarm unit (8), signal lamp) for safety barrier triggering to alert personnel and passengers, and Reference 2 teaches reliable detection of patrons in the corridor via photoelectric barriers (10, 10’). Extending alarm triggering to person detection is a predictable, safety-driven modification that improves situational awareness and supports semi-automated operation.
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 cableway station.
CLAIM 14 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
With respect to the additional limitation that “each pair of opposing safety barriers comprises an interior safety barrier,” Reference 2 teaches the barrier members (flaps (7, 7’)) hinged on lane boundary structures (supports (2, 2’)), where each flap defines an inward-facing barrier surface to the passage corridor. When adapted to the station passenger area boundary of Reference 1, the opposed barriers would naturally include a barrier on the “interior” side (i.e., toward the prohibited/hazard region) and the “exterior” side (toward the public/surrounding region), because the corridor must be bounded on both sides by barrier members to control access.
With respect to “a first structural separation between an interior safety barrier of the entry zone and an interior safety barrier of the exit zone configured to block access from the boarding/alighting area to a prohibited area of the cableway station,” Reference 1 is directed to preventing unsafe access into a hazard area near the cableway station by using safety barrier(s) (2) and monitoring/response logic (sensor (3), control unit (4), drive (5)). Reference 2 teaches forming controlled lanes by lane boundaries (supports (2, 2’)) and associated structural components (e.g., overhead gantry beam (3)) that physically define and constrain the passage corridor and block lateral movement out of the corridor except at intended openings.
It would have been obvious to provide a structural separation (e.g., a barrier/fence/wall segment implemented using the lane boundary structural elements taught by Reference 2, such as supports (2, 2’) and associated fixed structures) between the interior safety barrier at an entry-side location and the interior safety barrier at an exit-side location so as to block access from the boarding/alighting area to the prohibited area of the station, because such structural segmentation is a predictable safety measure that prevents persons from bypassing the intended safety barrier corridor and entering the hazardous region adjacent moving cableway vehicles (F), directly aligned with the safety purpose of Reference 1 and the physical corridor-control approach of Reference 2.
Accordingly, claim 14 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 14 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add structural separations between barrier segments because Reference 1’s safety barrier (2) system is specifically aimed at preventing unsafe access and triggering safety responses, and Reference 2 teaches constructing access corridors with fixed structural boundaries (supports (2, 2’) and overhead framework (3)) that guide and constrain patrons. Extending this corridor-boundary concept to block access to prohibited station regions yields the predictable result of reducing bypass routes and improving safety without changing the underlying station drive/control architecture.
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 cableway station, and a transit area in the second structural separation that is configured to connect the boarding/alighting area to the surrounding area.
CLAIM 15 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
With respect to “each pair of opposing safety barriers comprises an exterior safety barrier,” as discussed for claim 14, Reference 2 teaches opposing barrier members (flaps (7, 7’)) forming a controlled corridor. When adapted to the station passenger area boundary of Reference 1, one of the barrier members on each side functions as an “exterior” barrier relative to the boarding/alighting area boundary, because the corridor interfaces between the boarding/alighting area and surrounding/public areas.
With respect to “a second structural separation between an exterior safety barrier of the entry zone and an exterior safety barrier of the exit zone configured to at least partially block access … to a surrounding area,” Reference 2 teaches that access lanes are formed by lane boundaries (supports (2, 2’)) and associated fixed structures which define and constrain passage, thereby inherently blocking access from the lane (analogous to a boarding/alighting area boundary corridor) to surrounding areas except where openings are provided. This is the functional equivalent of a structural separation providing controlled access points.
With respect to “a transit area in the second structural separation … configured to connect the boarding/alighting area to the surrounding area,” Reference 2 teaches the access lane itself as a defined passageway through the gate threshold (4). That lane/threshold region constitutes a transit area providing controlled connection between areas on opposite sides of the gate (e.g., outside area and controlled access area for ski lift entrance). Applying this teaching to Reference 1, the station would include a transit area through the defined structural separation to connect the boarding/alighting area to the surrounding area in a controlled manner.
Accordingly, claim 15 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 15 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide an exterior-side structural separation with a defined transit area because Reference 2 teaches that controlling patron flow into and out of a protected area (e.g., ski lift entrance) is accomplished by forming structural lane boundaries and providing controlled transit through a gate threshold (4). Implementing analogous corridor-based access control around the boarding/alighting area of Reference 1 yields predictable benefits: controlled ingress/egress, reduced bypass of safety barriers, and improved safety and station management.
The circular cableway according to claim 15, further comprising at least one of: a barrier configured in the transit area and operable for selectively blocking and unblocking the transit area; and a second detection device configured to detect people in the transit area.
CLAIM 16 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
With respect to “a barrier configured in the transit area and operable for selectively blocking and unblocking the transit area,” Reference 2 teaches that the opposing flaps (7, 7’) form a barrier at the threshold (4) and are automatically opened after access right verification and closed immediately behind a patron. Thus, Reference 2 teaches a barrier in a transit area that selectively blocks/unblocks the transit passage.
With respect to “a second detection device configured to detect people in the transit area,” Reference 2 teaches the photoelectric barriers (10, 10’) that detect passage of patrons through the threshold region (the transit area) and initiate barrier control actions. Thus, Reference 2 teaches detection devices detecting people in the transit area.
Accordingly, claim 16 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 16 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a transit-area barrier and transit-area detection because Reference 2 teaches that selective blocking/unblocking of a transit corridor using barrier flaps (7, 7’) controlled by detection devices (photoelectric barriers (10, 10’)) improves safety and prevents unauthorized passage. Incorporating these features into the cableway station context of Reference 1 predictably improves access management and safety around the boarding/alighting area.
The circular cableway according to claim 16, further comprising a reader configured to read a ticket and to control the barrier as a function of a validity of the ticket.
CLAIM 17 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
Reference 2 teaches first electronic means identifying access rights of patrons, including a contactless RFID-reader, and teaches that the access right is verified by a verification system and that the flaps (7, 7’) are activated when an access right has been approved to swing out of the lane to indicate granted access. Reference 2 further teaches that the supports (2, 2’) carry RFID antennas (6, 6’) forming reading zones (9, 9’) that capture an RFID ticket, and that after verification, the flaps (7) are opened. This teaches a reader (RFID antennas (6, 6’)) configured to read a ticket and to control the barrier (flaps (7, 7’)) as a function of ticket validity (verified access right).
Accordingly, claim 17 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 17 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include ticket-reading and validity-based barrier control because Reference 2 teaches that such readers (RFID antennas (6, 6’)) and verification systems provide automated access control for ski lift entrances, which is directly applicable to cableway boarding/alighting area access management. Implementing ticket-based control at a cableway station predictably improves automation and reduces reliance on manual supervision, consistent with automated safety/access objectives.
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.
CLAIM 18 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
With respect to “at least one of the pair of opposing safety barriers is movable,” Reference 2 teaches motor driven flaps (7, 7’) that pivot from a closed position to an open position, i.e., movable barriers. Thus, the opposing barriers include movable parts.
With respect to “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,” Reference 1 teaches positioning the safety barrier (2) in an exit area of the station where the cableway vehicle (F) traverses the station region (including a region associated with vehicle coupling to the rope (12)) and teaches that safety barriers can be used for safety monitoring and control actions (sensor (3), control unit (4), drive (5)). Reference 2 teaches that the access lane widths and opposing flap geometry are selected to constrain passage and prevent side-by-side patrons, illustrating that barrier spacing is a controllable design parameter selected to prevent unauthorized or unsafe passage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when adapting the opposing movable barriers (7, 7’) to the vehicle passage corridor of Reference 1, to select a barrier-to-vehicle clearance less than 50 cm in the closed position to prevent a person from squeezing between the vehicle (F) and the barrier, because (i) the fundamental purpose of the barriers is to deter/stop improper intrusion into a hazard region adjacent moving vehicles, (ii) reducing clearance predictably reduces bypass risk, and (iii) selecting a specific clearance threshold such as less than 50 cm is an optimization of a result-effective variable (clearance) that would have been within ordinary design skill based on safety requirements and vehicle envelope constraints.
Accordingly, claim 18 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 18 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select a small clearance (e.g., less than 50 cm) between a movable barrier element and the vehicle passage envelope because the predictable safety benefit is to prevent human bypass in the gap region, thereby reducing injury risk. Reference 2 demonstrates design selection of corridor/barrier spacing to prevent undesired passage behaviors, and applying that design approach to the vehicle-adjacent corridor of Reference 1 would have been a predictable, safety-driven optimization.
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 on detection device; determining with the at least one detection device if at least one of the safety barriers has been displaced from the closed position to the open position or detecting a person in the passage area and 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.
CLAIM 19 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
With respect to “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,” Reference 1 teaches a cable car drive (5) and a control unit (4) for controlling the drive, and teaches that the sensor (3) generates a sensor signal (Y) which is received by the control unit (4).
With respect to “determining with the at least one detection device if at least one of the safety barriers has been displaced from the closed position to the open position,” Reference 1 teaches detecting an opening state of the safety barrier (2) using sensor (3), including embodiments where a camera system (K) with camera (10) and evaluation unit (11) evaluates images to recognize the opening state and generate the sensor signal (Y).
With respect to “or detecting a person in the passage area,” Reference 2 teaches photoelectric barriers (10, 10’) configured to detect passage of patrons through the gate threshold (4), which corresponds to detecting a person in the passage/transit area between opposing barriers (7, 7’). Applied to the modified station of Reference 1, these sensors provide detection of a person in the passage area adjacent the vehicle path.
With respect to “transmitting a detection signal from the at least one detection device to the control unit as a result of such determination,” Reference 1 teaches transmission of sensor signal (Y) from sensor (3) to control unit (4). It would have been obvious to likewise transmit the person-detection signal from Reference 2’s photoelectric barriers (10, 10’) to the control unit (4) to trigger safety responses.
With respect to “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,” Reference 1 teaches that the control unit (4) stops the cable car drive (5) or reduces speed upon receipt of the sensor signal (Y) corresponding to the open position of the safety barrier (2). In view of Reference 2’s person detection, it would have been obvious to also stop or reduce speed upon receipt/interruption of the person-detection signal, for the same safety reasons described for claim 9.
Accordingly, claim 19 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 19 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement the claimed operating method steps because Reference 1 teaches a safety-driven control loop: detect safety barrier state (sensor (3)), send sensor signal (Y) to control unit (4), and stop/reduce drive (5). Reference 2 teaches reliable person detection in a passage corridor (photoelectric barriers (10, 10’)). Combining these yields a predictable, safety-enhancing operating method in which the control unit reacts to either barrier displacement or detected person presence by stopping or slowing, consistent with automated station safety goals.
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 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.
CLAIM 20 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
Reference 1 teaches an alarm unit (8) configured to trigger a preferably optical and/or acoustic alarm upon detection of the open position of the safety barrier (2) by the sensor (3). Reference 1 further teaches that the sensor signal (Y) can be transmitted to the alarm unit (8) directly or indirectly via the control unit (4). Thus, Reference 1 teaches generating an alarm signal in response to a detection signal indicating that a safety barrier is open.
In view of Reference 2’s teaching of detecting a person in the passage corridor using photoelectric barriers (10, 10’), it would have been obvious to also generate an alarm in response to person detection in the passage area, because this is a predictable extension of the alarm function taught by Reference 1 to additional hazardous conditions detected by the added sensors.
Accordingly, claim 20 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
CLAIM 20 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to generate alarms for both barrier-open detection and person-detection events because Reference 1 expressly teaches alarm generation (alarm unit (8)) to alert personnel and passengers to hazardous barrier-open conditions, and Reference 2 teaches reliable sensing of people in the passage corridor (photoelectric barriers (10, 10’)). Extending alarm generation to person detection yields predictable safety benefits and supports automated supervision.
CLAIMS 10 AND 13: REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
The circular cableway according to claim 8, wherein the cableway station 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.
CLAIM 10 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
With respect to “the drive device comprises a first drive unit configured to drive the conveyor cable,” Reference 1 teaches a cable car drive (5) which drives the cable car system, corresponding to a first drive unit driving the conveyor/delivery rope (12).
With respect to “the cableway station comprises an auxiliary drive operable to move cableway vehicles uncoupled from the conveyor cable from the entry zone to the exit zone,” Reference 3 teaches an overhead cable transport installation with a continuously running cable (10), wherein chairs (14) (or gondola) are uncoupled from the cable (10) by opening a detachable grip (17) in the stations, and the chair-carrying carriage (26) runs on a transfer support rail (18) in the station. Reference 3 further teaches that the braking, acceleration, and driving of the uncoupled grip carriage (26) in the stations may be provided by friction wheels (22, 24), and further teaches a transfer chain (28) with push fingers (30) extending along the transfer rail (18) to drive the carriage (26). These teachings correspond to an auxiliary drive moving cableway vehicles uncoupled from the conveyor cable through a station region from an entry-side region to an exit-side region.
With respect to “the drive device comprises … a second drive unit for the auxiliary drive,” Reference 3 teaches that the uncoupled vehicle/carriage motion is driven by station-based drive elements (e.g., friction wheels (22, 24) and/or transfer chain (28)) that necessarily require a drive source separate from the cable drive, and thus provides the concept of a separate auxiliary drive unit. Reference 1 provides the primary cable drive (5). Combining these teachings yields a first drive unit for driving the conveyor cable and a second drive unit for driving the auxiliary station conveyor/drive elements.
Accordingly, claim 10 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
CLAIM 10 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate the auxiliary station-drive teachings of Reference 3 into the cableway system of Reference 1 because Reference 3 teaches the well-known and predictable approach for detachable ropeway systems: vehicles are uncoupled from the cable (10) in stations and moved slowly and controllably along a station path via auxiliary drives (transfer rail (18), friction wheels (22, 24), transfer chain (28)). Integrating this auxiliary-drive concept into Reference 1’s station safety/control framework predictably improves station handling and passenger safety by enabling controlled low-speed movement in the boarding/alighting zone while maintaining the safety barrier/detection control responses taught by References 1 and 2.
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.
CLAIM 13 — LIMITATION-BY-LIMITATION ANALYSIS
Reference 1 discloses a cable car system with cableway vehicles (F) traveling between stations (1a, 1b), which is consistent with cabin-type vehicles commonly used in cable car systems.
Additionally, Reference 3 expressly teaches that the aerial ropeway includes chairs (14) coupled/decoupled from the cable (10) and intended for transporting passengers, thus teaching a chair vehicle for accommodating multiple people. Therefore, the limitation of claim 13 is taught by Reference 3, and it would have been obvious to implement the circular cableway of Reference 1 with chair-type vehicles and/or cabin-type vehicles, as these are well-known alternative vehicle types for ropeway transport systems.
Accordingly, claim 13 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3.
CLAIM 13 — MOTIVATION TO COMBINE / RATIONALE
A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement the cableway vehicles as chairs and/or cabins because Reference 3 teaches chairlift vehicles (chairs (14)) for passenger transport in a detachable ropeway environment and Reference 1 concerns a cable car/cableway station system. Selecting chair or cabin vehicles is a predictable design choice depending on capacity, environment, and intended use, and does not require inventive skill.
Conclusion
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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 3613