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 12/21/23 and 04/24/26 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.
“DEFINED FLOW STALL” / FUNCTIONAL RESULT LANGUAGE
Claim 1 recites “an air turbulence device on the cableway vehicle configured to generate a defined flow stall of an air flow flowing around the cableway vehicle during movement of the cableway vehicle.”
The phrase “defined flow stall” renders the scope of claim 1 unclear. Although the specification states that a “defined flow stall” is understood to mean a “substantially locally constant and preferably high-frequency flow stall” that occurs independently of the wind vector field, the claim does not set forth objective boundaries for determining when a flow stall is “defined.” In particular, the claim does not identify the operating speed, wind direction, wind speed, flow condition, measurement location, measurement method, required degree of local constancy, required frequency, or required reduction in aerodynamic force/moment variation needed to satisfy the limitation.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether the claim encompasses any structure that creates turbulence or flow separation around the cableway vehicle, only structures that cause the stall to occur at substantially the same location under varying wind conditions, or only structures that also create a high-frequency stall. The metes and bounds of the claimed “air turbulence device” are therefore unclear because the device is defined by an aerodynamic result without a reasonably clear standard for determining whether the result is achieved.
Claims 2-19 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason. Claim 20 recites a cableway comprising at least one cableway vehicle according to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason.
SUGGESTION FOR AMENDMENT
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 1 to define the air turbulence device in structural terms and/or by reciting objective parameters for the alleged “defined flow stall.” For example, applicant may clarify whether the limitation requires a stall edge, a spoiler/turbulator, projections, recesses, a brush-like element, a net, a perforated plate, a mesh, a rubber lip, or another specific structural arrangement, and may specify the relevant operating/measurement conditions if the aerodynamic effect is intended to further limit the claim.
CLAIM 7 - UNCLEAR DIRECTIONAL PHRASE
Claim 7 recites that “the air turbulence device comprises, in at least one of the direction of movement, transversely to the direction of movement, and in a vertical direction, at least one of: a plurality of projections arranged one behind the other; and a plurality of recesses arranged one behind the other.”
The phrase “comprises, in at least one of the direction of movement, transversely to the direction of movement, and in a vertical direction” is grammatically unclear. It is uncertain whether the listed directions modify the location of the air turbulence device, the orientation of the projections/recesses, or the direction in which the projections/recesses are “arranged one behind the other.” Therefore, the claim fails to clearly identify the required spatial relationship of the projections and/or recesses.
SUGGESTION FOR AMENDMENT
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 7 to recite, for example, that the plurality of projections and/or plurality of recesses are “arranged one behind the other in at least one of the direction of movement, a transverse direction transverse to the direction of movement, and a vertical direction.”
CLAIM 8 - UNCLEAR ANTECEDENT / ALTERNATIVE LIMITATION
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and recites “wherein the plurality of projections have a height of at least 5 mm and the plurality of recesses have a depth of at least 5 mm.”
Claim 7 recites the projections and recesses in the alternative, i.e., “at least one of” a plurality of projections and a plurality of recesses. Claim 8 then refers to both “the plurality of projections” and “the plurality of recesses.” It is unclear whether claim 8 requires both projections and recesses to be present, whether claim 8 merely specifies dimensions for whichever one of the alternatives is present in claim 7, or whether claim 8 improperly refers to an alternative not necessarily required by claim 7. Accordingly, the scope of claim 8 is unclear.
SUGGESTION FOR AMENDMENT
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 8 to specify the intended relationship. For example, if both structures are required, applicant may amend claim 8 to recite that the air turbulence device comprises both a plurality of projections and a plurality of recesses, with the projections having the recited height and the recesses having the recited depth. Alternatively, if the limitation is intended to apply only to whichever alternative is present, applicant may amend claim 8 to recite “wherein the plurality of projections, when present, have a height of at least 5 mm, and the plurality of recesses, when present, have a depth of at least 5 mm,” or similar language.
CLAIMS 9-12 - LACK OF ANTECEDENT BASIS FOR “THE CARRIER”
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the air turbulence device further comprises at least one air turbulence element fastened to the carrier.” However, claim 1 does not recite a “carrier.” Therefore, there is no antecedent basis in claim 1 for “the carrier” recited in claim 9. It is unclear what structure the “carrier” refers to in claim 9 and what structure receives the fastened air turbulence element.
Claims 10-12 depend from claim 9 and are indefinite for at least the same reason.
SUGGESTION FOR AMENDMENT
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 9 to depend from claim 4, which recites “a carrier configured to receive persons,” or by amending claim 9 to introduce the carrier expressly, for example: “wherein the cableway vehicle comprises a carrier, and wherein the air turbulence device further comprises at least one air turbulence element fastened to the carrier.”
CLAIM 16 - INCOMPLETE GRAMMATICAL RECITATION
Claim 16 recites: “wherein, in the closed position of the weather protection hood, the air turbulence device on the outside of the weather protection hood adjacent a highest point of the weather protection hood when viewed in the vertical direction.”
The claim language is incomplete because it lacks a linking verb between “the air turbulence device on the outside of the weather protection hood” and “adjacent a highest point.” As written, it is unclear whether the air turbulence device is required to be on the outside of the weather protection hood, whether the air turbulence device is required to be adjacent the highest point, or both.
SUGGESTION FOR AMENDMENT
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 16 to recite, for example: “wherein, in the closed position of the weather protection hood, the air turbulence device is on the outside of the weather protection hood adjacent a highest point of the weather protection hood when viewed in the vertical direction.”
REFERENCES USED
Reference 1: Osterle, U.S. Patent No. 6,520,573 B2, “Chair for a Cableway System.”
Reference 2: Preiss et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0176910 A1, “Air Directing Apparatus for a Motor Vehicle.”
Reference 3: Chen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0031743 A1, “Gondola Lift with Cooling System.”
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 1-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 3.
──────────
CLAIM 1 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
A cableway vehicle for a cableway movable by a conveyor cable in a direction of movement and having a suspension for suspending the cableway vehicle from the conveyor cable, comprising: an air turbulence device on the cableway vehicle configured to generate a defined flow stall of an air flow flowing around the cableway vehicle during movement of the cableway vehicle; wherein the air turbulence device extends transversely with respect to the direction of movement at least over some of a width of the cableway vehicle.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses a cableway vehicle for a cableway. In particular, Reference 1 discloses a chair for a cableway system having seat surfaces 2 carried by a load-bearing framework 1. A load-bearing bar 3 projects upward from the load-bearing framework 1 and includes a clamping apparatus 31 by which the chair is coupled to a supporting and haulage cable 30. The supporting and haulage cable 30 corresponds to the claimed conveyor cable because it both supports and moves the chair along the cableway path. The load-bearing bar 3 and clamping apparatus 31 correspond to the claimed suspension for suspending the cableway vehicle from the conveyor cable.
Reference 1 therefore discloses the claimed cableway vehicle environment, including a passenger-carrying vehicle suspended from and movable by a cable in a direction of movement. Reference 1 also discloses a covering hood 4 mounted on the chair, the covering hood 4 being an exterior vehicle surface exposed to incident air flow during travel of the chair along the supporting and haulage cable 30.
Reference 1 does not expressly disclose the claimed air turbulence device configured to generate a defined flow stall. Reference 2 discloses an air-directing apparatus having a basic body 100, 200 attachable to a vehicle and configured to direct air flow occurring during vehicle operation. Reference 2 further discloses swirling elements 201 arranged on the basic body 200, with intermediate spaces 202 between the swirling elements 201. The swirling elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202 generate flow separations at defined side edges of the intermediate spaces 202 and generate boundary vortices that disturb regularly pulsating flow separation at the basic body 200. The swirling elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202 therefore correspond to an air turbulence device configured to generate a defined flow stall or defined flow separation of air flowing around a moving vehicle.
Reference 2 further discloses that the air-directing apparatus extends in a transverse direction of the vehicle. The basic body 100, 200 has a transverse width, and the swirling elements 201 are arranged spaced apart in the transverse direction with intermediate spaces 202 between them. When the air-directing apparatus of Reference 2 is applied to the cableway vehicle of Reference 1, the air turbulence device would be mounted on an exterior portion of the chair, such as the convex covering hood 4, the load-bearing framework 1, or another exposed surface, and would extend transversely with respect to the direction of movement over at least a portion of the width of the cableway vehicle.
Thus, Reference 1 discloses the cableway vehicle, conveyor cable, direction of movement, and suspension limitations, and Reference 2 discloses the air turbulence device, the generation of defined flow separation/stall, and the transverse extension of the turbulence-generating structure.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the cableway vehicle of Reference 1 to include the air-directing/swirl device of Reference 2 on an exterior surface of the vehicle, such as the covering hood 4 or framework 1, because Reference 1’s cableway vehicle moves through ambient air while suspended from cable 30, and Reference 2 teaches that defined swirl elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202 disturb regular pulsating flow separation and reduce undesirable aerodynamic noise. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known vehicle air-flow control device of Reference 2 to the exposed cableway vehicle of Reference 1 to reduce wind-induced flow separation, noise, and vibration during travel, thereby improving passenger comfort and operating stability. The modification would have involved the predictable use of a known aerodynamic flow-disturbing structure on a known moving passenger vehicle exposed to air flow.
──────────
CLAIM 2 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the air turbulence device extends over at least 30% of the width of the cableway vehicle.
Analysis
As discussed for claim 1, Reference 1 discloses a cableway vehicle having a transverse passenger width defined by the load-bearing framework 1 and multiple seat surfaces 2. Reference 2 discloses an air-directing apparatus extending transversely across a vehicle and having a basic body 100, 200 with a transverse width and swirling elements 201 spaced across that transverse direction.
Reference 2 does not expressly recite a numeric value of “at least 30%” relative to the width of the cableway vehicle of Reference 1. However, Reference 2 teaches an elongated transverse air-flow control structure, not merely a small point feature. Applying the air-directing apparatus of Reference 2 to the cableway vehicle of Reference 1 would predictably require the device to extend across a meaningful portion of the transverse vehicle width so that the device affects enough of the incident air flow to disturb flow separation over the passenger-carrying vehicle. A transverse coverage of at least 30% of the vehicle width would have been an obvious implementation of Reference 2’s transverse air-directing concept on the wide cableway chair of Reference 1.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to size the air turbulence device to extend over at least 30% of the width of Reference 1’s cableway vehicle because Reference 2 teaches a transversely extending aerodynamic device intended to influence vehicle air flow over a region, and a person of ordinary skill would have selected sufficient transverse coverage to produce a useful flow-separation effect rather than a merely localized disturbance. The 30% value represents an obvious design choice in view of the intended aerodynamic function, with the expected benefit of increasing the spanwise extent of controlled flow disturbance while avoiding the weight and material cost of unnecessarily covering the entire vehicle width.
──────────
CLAIM 3 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein a width of the air turbulence device transverse to the direction of movement is at least twice as large as a length of the air turbulence device in the direction of movement.
Analysis
Reference 2 discloses an air-directing apparatus having a basic body 100, 200 extending in the transverse direction and configured to interact with an air flow moving in an inflow direction A. The swirling elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202 are arranged across the transverse direction so that the device influences air flow along a transverse span. In the ordinary configuration of a spoiler-like or strip-like air-directing apparatus, the transverse width is substantially greater than the length in the vehicle travel direction.
When applied to the cableway vehicle of Reference 1, a person of ordinary skill would have formed the air turbulence device as a laterally elongated strip or spoiler-like body on the covering hood 4, framework 1, or another exposed surface. Such a configuration would have a transverse width at least twice the flow-direction length because the device is intended to affect the air flow across the vehicle width while minimizing drag, projection length, weight, and visual intrusion in the direction of movement.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to make the transverse width of the air turbulence device at least twice its length in the direction of movement because Reference 2 teaches a transversely extending flow-control body, and the cableway vehicle of Reference 1 presents a wide passenger-carrying surface exposed to air flow. A wide-and-short turbulence strip would have predictably provided broad spanwise flow control with limited forward projection, thereby reducing material, weight, and drag while still producing the desired flow-separation disturbance.
──────────
CLAIM 4 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the cableway vehicle comprises a carrier configured to receive persons and connected with the suspension; and wherein a portion of the air turbulence device is arranged: above the carrier in an upper region of the cableway vehicle; below the carrier in a lower region of the cableway vehicle; or laterally on the carrier in a lateral region of the cableway vehicle.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses a carrier configured to receive persons. The load-bearing framework 1 carries multiple seat surfaces 2 for passengers. The load-bearing framework 1 and seat surfaces 2 are connected to the suspension through load-bearing bar 3 and clamping apparatus 31, which couple the chair to the supporting and haulage cable 30.
Reference 1 also discloses a covering hood 4 pivotably mounted on the chair. The covering hood 4 is located in an upper/front region relative to the seat surfaces 2 when deployed, and it encloses or covers the passenger seating region. Reference 1 further discloses side panels 21 at lateral ends of the passenger seating region. These structures establish upper and lateral regions of the cableway vehicle.
Reference 2 discloses that the air-directing/swirl structure may be arranged on a vehicle surface and, in particular, may include swirling elements 201 arranged on a lower side of a basic body 200. Thus, Reference 2 teaches placement of aerodynamic turbulence-generating structure on an exposed vehicle body surface, including upper, lower, or downwardly directed surfaces.
In the combined cableway vehicle, the air turbulence device of Reference 2 would be arranged on an exposed upper portion such as the covering hood 4, on a lateral portion such as a side panel 21 or lateral portion of the hood 4, or on a lower/exposed underside portion of the carrier, depending on the desired flow-separation location. Therefore, the combination teaches the claimed carrier and the claimed upper, lower, or lateral arrangement of at least a portion of the air turbulence device.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to arrange the air turbulence device on an upper, lower, or lateral region of the carrier because those regions are exposed to air flow as the cableway vehicle moves along cable 30. Reference 2 teaches placing the turbulence-generating structure where the incident air flow interacts with the vehicle surface so that the structure can create boundary vortices and disturb regular flow separation. A person of ordinary skill would have selected the upper hood region, lateral side region, or lower region of Reference 1’s carrier as predictable exterior mounting locations for achieving the desired flow-separation control while maintaining passenger access and comfort.
──────────
CLAIM 5 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 4, wherein a portion of the air turbulence device provided on a side of the cableway vehicle extends at least over some of a height of the cableway vehicle.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses side panels 21 at lateral ends of the passenger carrier, as well as lateral portions of the covering hood 4. These side portions extend vertically over at least some height of the cableway vehicle relative to the seat surfaces 2 and framework 1.
Reference 2 discloses an air turbulence device having flow-disturbing elements 201 and spaces 202 arranged on a vehicle-mounted body. In applying the air turbulence device of Reference 2 to the side of Reference 1’s cableway vehicle, the device would necessarily extend over some height of the side portion because the side panel 21 or lateral hood portion has vertical extent and the turbulence elements must have some height to project into or otherwise affect the air flow. Thus, the combination teaches or renders obvious a side-mounted portion of the air turbulence device extending over at least some of the vehicle height.
Motivation/Rationale
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 side-mounted turbulence device over some height of Reference 1’s cableway vehicle because the side of a suspended cableway vehicle is exposed to cross-flow and yawed wind components during travel. Extending the device vertically over part of the side increases the vertical region over which flow separation is controlled and would predictably reduce side-surface flow instability without requiring coverage of the entire vehicle side.
──────────
CLAIM 6 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 4, wherein a height of a portion of the air turbulence device provided on a side of the cableway vehicle in a vertical direction is at least twice as large as its length in the direction of movement.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses vertically extending side regions, including side panels 21 and lateral portions of the covering hood 4. Reference 2 discloses an aerodynamic turbulence device that may be configured as a relatively short flow-direction structure with transversely or otherwise spaced swirling elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202. The device is intended to disturb air flow and flow separation without requiring a long projection in the direction of vehicle movement.
When the air turbulence device of Reference 2 is applied to a side region of Reference 1’s cableway vehicle, a person of ordinary skill would have been led to use a vertically elongated, narrow-in-travel-direction strip or element. Such a side arrangement would have a height in the vertical direction at least twice its length in the direction of movement, because vertical extension increases the affected side-flow region while a small flow-direction length limits drag, protrusion, material use, and interference with passenger loading or adjacent chairs.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to make the side-mounted turbulence portion vertically taller than it is long in the direction of movement, including at least twice as tall, because Reference 1’s side regions have available vertical height and Reference 2 teaches a flow-disturbing structure that need only project a limited distance in the flow direction to generate separation and vortices. The claimed ratio would have been an obvious dimensional optimization to affect side flow over a useful vertical span while minimizing forward/rearward protrusion and drag.
──────────
CLAIM 7 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the air turbulence device comprises, in at least one of the direction of movement, transversely to the direction of movement, and in a vertical direction, at least one of: a plurality of projections arranged one behind the other; and a plurality of recesses arranged one behind the other.
Analysis
Reference 2 discloses a plurality of swirling elements 201 arranged on the basic body 200. The swirling elements 201 project from the basic body 200 and correspond to the claimed plurality of projections. Reference 2 also discloses intermediate spaces 202 arranged between the swirling elements 201. The intermediate spaces 202 correspond to recesses, gaps, or recessed flow passages between adjacent projecting elements.
Reference 2 discloses the swirling elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202 arranged in the transverse direction of the vehicle. Reference 2 also discloses that the intermediate spaces 202 expand or narrow in the inflow direction A, thereby defining a flow-direction relationship between the projections 201 and spaces 202. When applied to the cableway vehicle of Reference 1, the plurality of projections 201 and/or recesses 202 would be arranged one behind another transversely across the vehicle, vertically on a side surface, or in the direction of movement, depending on the selected mounting surface.
Motivation/Rationale
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 plurality of projections 201 and spaces 202 of Reference 2 on Reference 1’s cableway vehicle because Reference 2 teaches that those repeated structures generate boundary vortices and disturb regular pulsating flow separation. Repeating the projections or recesses in a selected direction provides a predictable way to distribute the flow-disturbing effect over the desired vehicle surface.
──────────
CLAIM 8 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of projections have a height of at least 5 mm and the plurality of recesses have a depth of at least 5 mm.
Analysis
Reference 2 discloses projections in the form of swirling elements 201 and recesses/gaps in the form of intermediate spaces 202. Reference 2 teaches that the geometry of the swirling elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202 is selected to generate boundary vortices and disturb regularly pulsating flow separation. In order to perform that function on a moving vehicle, the projections and spaces must be large enough to interact with the external boundary layer and incident air flow.
Reference 2 does not expressly recite the exact numeric value of 5 mm for the projection height or recess depth. However, a height/depth of at least 5 mm would have been an obvious dimension for a vehicle-mounted turbulence device, particularly on a cableway chair or hood of the size disclosed in Reference 1. A person of ordinary skill would have selected projection and recess dimensions large enough to produce a measurable aerodynamic disturbance, and 5 mm is a routine lower-bound dimension for a macroscopic exterior vehicle turbulence feature.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to size the projections 201 and/or recesses 202 to at least 5 mm because Reference 2 teaches that the geometry must generate boundary vortices and disturb flow separation, and a person of ordinary skill would have selected dimensions sufficient to protrude into the relevant air flow around Reference 1’s cableway vehicle. The 5 mm threshold would have been an obvious, predictable design choice to ensure aerodynamic effectiveness while maintaining a compact structure.
──────────
CLAIM 9 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the air turbulence device further comprises at least one air turbulence element fastened to the carrier.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses a carrier in the form of load-bearing framework 1 and seat surfaces 2 configured to receive passengers. The covering hood 4 and side panels 21 are part of or mounted to the passenger-carrying chair structure.
Reference 2 discloses air-flow-disturbing elements in the form of swirling elements 201 arranged on a basic body 200. When the air turbulence device of Reference 2 is applied to the cableway vehicle of Reference 1, at least one swirling element 201 would be fastened to the carrier or to an exterior component of the carrier, such as covering hood 4, side panel 21, or load-bearing framework 1. The swirling element 201 therefore corresponds to the claimed air turbulence element fastened to the carrier.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to fasten at least one air turbulence element to the carrier of Reference 1 because the carrier provides the exposed vehicle structure on which the flow-disturbing element must be mounted to interact with the air flow. Fastening the element to the carrier would have been a predictable mechanical implementation of Reference 2’s vehicle-mounted air-directing apparatus.
──────────
CLAIM 10 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the air turbulence device comprises at least two air turbulence elements spaced apart from one another on the carrier in the direction of movement, transversely to the direction of movement, or in the vertical direction.
Analysis
Reference 2 discloses multiple swirling elements 201 arranged on the basic body 200. The swirling elements 201 are spaced apart from one another, with intermediate spaces 202 located between adjacent elements. Reference 2 expressly teaches spacing the swirling elements 201 apart in the transverse direction of the vehicle. When the device is mounted on Reference 1’s carrier, the at least two swirling elements 201 are spaced apart on the carrier, satisfying the claim.
The claim permits spacing in the direction of movement, transversely to the direction of movement, or vertically. Reference 2’s transverse arrangement satisfies one of the claimed alternatives. Further, if the device is mounted on a side panel 21 or lateral portion of covering hood 4 of Reference 1, spacing the elements vertically would have been a predictable alternative orientation for the same repeated turbulence structures.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use at least two spaced air turbulence elements because Reference 2 teaches that repeated swirling elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202 distribute the flow disturbance and generate boundary vortices over a broader region. Spacing multiple elements on Reference 1’s carrier would predictably improve the coverage and effectiveness of the aerodynamic disturbance compared with a single isolated element.
──────────
CLAIM 11 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
The cableway vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the at least one air turbulence element is at least partially air-permeable in the direction of movement; or the at least one air turbulence element is flexible.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 disclose the cableway vehicle and the air turbulence element as discussed for claim 9. Reference 2 does not expressly disclose that the turbulence element is air-permeable or flexible.
Reference 3 discloses a gondola lift 1 having a cabin 10 and air-flow/cooling structure. Reference 3 discloses ventilation openings 10h in the cabin 10 and a porous case 21 having a plurality of holes 21h. Air enters through the ventilation openings 10h during movement of the gondola lift 1 and passes through the cooling system 20. The porous case 21 with holes 21h is at least partially air-permeable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to configure at least one turbulence element of the combined Reference 1/Reference 2 cableway vehicle as an air-permeable element, such as a perforated or porous member having openings like holes 21h of Reference 3. The claim is written in the alternative; therefore, the air-permeable limitation is sufficient, and the flexible alternative need not be separately shown.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to make at least one air turbulence element air-permeable because Reference 3 teaches that perforated/porous structures with holes 21h allow air to pass through a cableway vehicle air-flow component. Incorporating air-permeability into the turbulence element of Reference 2 as mounted on Reference 1 would predictably permit some air passage while still disturbing the air flow, reducing solid-surface drag and wind loading on the suspended cableway vehicle.
──────────
CLAIM 12 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
The cableway vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the at least one air turbulence element comprises at least one of a brush-like element, a net, a perforated plate, a mesh, and a rubber lip.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 disclose the cableway vehicle and air turbulence element as discussed for claim 9. Reference 2’s swirling elements 201 provide turbulence-generating structures, but Reference 2 does not expressly identify the element as a brush-like element, net, perforated plate, mesh, or rubber lip.
Reference 3 discloses a porous case 21 having a plurality of holes 21h. The porous case 21 is a perforated air-flow member. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that an air-permeable turbulence element may be formed as a perforated plate or plate-like porous member, as taught by Reference 3. Therefore, the combined references render obvious an air turbulence element comprising a perforated plate.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the air turbulence element as a perforated plate because Reference 3 teaches that perforated/porous structures with holes 21h are suitable for cableway vehicle air-flow management. Combining the perforated structure of Reference 3 with the flow-disturbing purpose of Reference 2 would predictably provide a turbulence element that disturbs flow while reducing wind resistance and loading compared with a fully solid element.
──────────
CLAIM 13 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
The cableway vehicle according to claim 4, wherein the carrier comprises a cabin having a roof, a floor, and at least one side wall and wherein a portion of the air turbulence device is on at least one of the roof, at least one of the side walls, and the floor.
Analysis
Reference 1 and Reference 2 disclose the cableway vehicle and air turbulence device as discussed for claim 4. Reference 1 primarily discloses a chair-type carrier, not a cabin carrier. Reference 3 discloses a gondola lift 1 having a cabin 10 for at least one passenger. A passenger gondola cabin 10 necessarily includes a roof, floor, and side walls to enclose the passenger space. Reference 3 also discloses ventilation openings 10h in the cabin 10, including openings on the windward side and upper part of the cabin 10, and an air-flow/cooling system 20 positioned adjacent the roof region.
It would have been obvious to apply the air turbulence device of Reference 2 to the exterior roof or side wall of the cabin 10 of Reference 3, while retaining the cableway-vehicle context taught by Reference 1. The roof and side wall of cabin 10 are exposed to air flow during gondola movement, and thus are predictable mounting locations for the swirling elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202 of Reference 2.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide the air turbulence device on a roof or side wall of a cabin-type cableway carrier because Reference 3 teaches that cabin 10 is a passenger carrier exposed to air flow during movement, and Reference 2 teaches mounting air-flow-disturbing structures on vehicle surfaces to disturb flow separation. A person of ordinary skill would have applied the turbulence device to the roof or side wall of cabin 10 to manage incident air flow over the cabin and reduce flow-induced noise, vibration, or wind loading.
──────────
CLAIM 14 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 4, wherein the carrier comprises a chair and a weather protection hood configured to cover the chair, wherein the weather protection hood is displaceable between an open position and a closed position, and wherein the air turbulence device is on the weather protection hood.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses a carrier comprising a chair. The chair includes load-bearing framework 1 and multiple seat surfaces 2. Reference 1 further discloses a covering hood 4 configured to cover or enclose the seat surfaces 2. The covering hood 4 corresponds to the claimed weather protection hood because it covers the passenger seating region and is designed as a hood for the cableway chair.
Reference 1 discloses that the covering hood 4 is pivotable between a closed position, in which it encloses the seat surfaces 2, and an open position, in which passengers can embark and disembark. Reference 1 therefore discloses the chair, weather protection hood, and open/closed displacement limitations.
Reference 1 does not expressly disclose the air turbulence device on the covering hood 4. Reference 2 discloses an air turbulence device including basic body 200, swirling elements 201, and intermediate spaces 202 configured to disturb flow separation. When the air turbulence device of Reference 2 is mounted on the covering hood 4 of Reference 1, the claim is satisfied.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to mount the air turbulence device of Reference 2 on the covering hood 4 of Reference 1 because the covering hood 4 is a large exterior surface exposed to air flow during travel of the chair along cable 30. Reference 2 teaches that swirl elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202 reduce undesirable effects of pulsating flow separation. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to place the device on the hood 4 to control air flow over the exposed weather hood and reduce wind-induced noise or vibration.
──────────
CLAIM 15 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 14, wherein the air turbulence device is on at least one of an outside and an inside of the weather protection hood when the weather protection hood is in the closed position.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses the covering hood 4 in a closed position enclosing the seat surfaces 2. The hood 4 has an exterior/outside surface exposed to ambient air and an interior/inside surface facing the passengers when closed. Reference 2 discloses the air turbulence device comprising swirling elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202 mounted on a vehicle-mounted body.
It would have been obvious to arrange the air turbulence device on the outside of the covering hood 4 when the hood is closed because the outside surface directly encounters air flow during movement of the cableway chair. Alternatively, Reference 2 also teaches placement of flow-disturbing elements on a lower or downwardly directed surface of a body; thus, arranging such elements on an inside or underside surface of a hood would also have been an obvious surface-placement option where air flow is present.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to place the air turbulence device on the outside of Reference 1’s closed covering hood 4 because the outside of the hood is the surface most directly exposed to incident air flow. Such placement would allow the swirling elements 201 and spaces 202 of Reference 2 to generate the intended flow separation and boundary vortices. The outside/inside choice would have been a predictable design selection based on the surface where flow control is desired.
──────────
CLAIM 16 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 14, wherein, in the closed position of the weather protection hood, the air turbulence device on the outside of the weather protection hood adjacent a highest point of the weather protection hood when viewed in the vertical direction.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses that the covering hood 4 is convexly curved and is shown in a closed position covering the seat surfaces 2. A convexly curved hood 4 necessarily has an upper crown or highest point when viewed in the vertical direction in the closed position. Reference 2 discloses an air turbulence device configured to disturb air flow and flow separation on a vehicle-mounted body.
It would have been obvious to arrange the air turbulence device on the outside of the covering hood 4 adjacent the highest point of the hood in the closed position. The highest outside region of the convex hood 4 is an exposed aerodynamic region where incident air flow travels over the hood and where flow separation can occur. Placing the turbulence device adjacent this region would predictably provide effective flow disturbance.
Motivation/Rationale
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 air turbulence device adjacent the highest point of the closed covering hood 4 because that region is exposed to the moving air stream and is a likely region for pressure changes and flow separation over a convex hood. Reference 2 teaches placing turbulence-generating structure where it can disturb regular flow separation. Positioning the device near the hood apex would have predictably improved aerodynamic influence while using a compact structure.
──────────
CLAIM 17 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 14, wherein the weather protection hood comprises a curved outer surface, and wherein the air turbulence device is adjacent to an apex of the curved outer surface.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses that the covering hood 4 is made of transparent material and is of convexly curved design. The convexly curved covering hood 4 has a curved outer surface and an apex or crown region. Reference 2 discloses the air turbulence device comprising swirling elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202 configured to generate flow separation and boundary vortices.
When the air turbulence device of Reference 2 is mounted on Reference 1’s convex covering hood 4 adjacent the apex of the curved outer surface, the claimed arrangement is met. The apex is a predictable and effective mounting location because it is an exposed, high-flow region of the curved hood.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to place the air turbulence device adjacent the apex of the curved outer surface of covering hood 4 because Reference 2 teaches disturbing flow separation on vehicle surfaces and the apex of a convex hood is a prominent aerodynamic surface exposed to incident flow. The placement would predictably control flow over the hood and reduce undesired flow separation, noise, or vibration.
──────────
CLAIM 18 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 14, wherein, in the open position of the weather protection hood, the air turbulence device is adjacent a front edge of the weather protection hood delimiting the weather protection hood.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses the covering hood 4 in an open position and a closed position. Reference 1 further discloses a front side of the covering hood 4 carrying buffer elements 43. The front side of the covering hood 4 includes a front edge delimiting the hood structure.
Reference 2 discloses that the air turbulence device may be arranged on a vehicle-mounted body to create flow separations and boundary vortices. It would have been obvious to locate the turbulence device adjacent the front edge of the covering hood 4 when the hood is in the open position because the front edge remains an exposed edge of the hood and is a location where air flow impinges, separates, or sheds vortices during travel of the cableway vehicle.
Motivation/Rationale
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 air turbulence device adjacent the front edge of the open covering hood 4 because flow separation commonly occurs at exposed edges of moving vehicle structures. Reference 2 teaches using defined projections and spaces to disturb and control flow separation. Applying that device near the hood’s front edge would predictably manage edge-related air flow and reduce wind-induced noise or vibration while the hood is open.
──────────
CLAIM 19 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The cableway vehicle according to claim 14, wherein the weather protection hood comprises a curved inner surface and wherein, in the open position of the weather protection hood, the air turbulence device is on an inner surface of the weather protection hood between a front edge delimiting the weather protection hood and an apex of the curved inner surface.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses a convexly curved covering hood 4. A convex outer hood necessarily has a corresponding curved inner surface facing the passenger space when the hood is closed and exposed differently when the hood is open. Reference 1 discloses the covering hood 4 in an open position, and the hood includes a front side with buffer elements 43 and an apex/crown region due to its convex curvature.
Reference 2 discloses placing swirling elements 201 and intermediate spaces 202 on a surface of a vehicle-mounted body. Reference 2 also teaches an embodiment with elements on a lower or downwardly directed side of the basic body 200, which supports placement on an inner or underside surface where air flow interaction is desired. In the combined structure, the air turbulence device would be placed on the curved inner surface of hood 4 between the front edge and apex, which are both identifiable regions of the curved hood structure.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to place the air turbulence device on the curved inner surface of the open hood 4 between the front edge and apex because, when the hood is open, the inner surface can become exposed to air flow and can contribute to flow separation or wind-induced loading. Reference 2 teaches using surface-mounted turbulence elements to disturb flow separation. Mounting the device on the inner curved surface between the edge and apex would predictably control air flow over that exposed hood region without requiring a separate external support.
──────────
CLAIM 20 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
A cableway having a plurality of cableway vehicles movable between at least two cableway stations with a conveyor cable, comprising at least one cableway vehicle according to claim 1.
Analysis
Reference 1 discloses a chair for a cableway system. The chair is coupled to a supporting and haulage cable 30 by clamping apparatus 31 and includes a running-gear mechanism 32 for movement in stations when uncoupled from the supporting and haulage cable 30. Reference 1 therefore discloses a cableway system having stations and a conveyor/supporting-haulage cable 30 for moving cableway chairs.
Reference 1’s cableway system context inherently or at least obviously includes a plurality of cableway vehicles because cableway systems conventionally operate with multiple chairs or passenger carriers movable between stations on a common supporting and haulage cable 30. Reference 2 supplies the air turbulence device of claim 1 as discussed above. Therefore, the combination renders obvious a cableway having a plurality of cableway vehicles, at least one of which is the modified cableway vehicle of claim 1.
Motivation/Rationale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide a cableway system with a plurality of the modified cableway vehicles because Reference 1 is directed to chairs for a cableway system operating with a supporting and haulage cable 30 and stations, and cableway systems conventionally use multiple vehicles to transport passengers efficiently between stations. Providing at least one such vehicle with the turbulence device of Reference 2 would predictably reduce aerodynamic noise or vibration for that vehicle, and applying the same modification to multiple vehicles would provide the same known benefit across the system.
CONCLUSION
CN101716935A and US2010/0089281A1 were not used in the rejection because they are directed primarily to a chair lift seat, safety bar, supporting bar, and footrest arrangement. They are relevant to the general cableway-chair environment, but they do not provide the strongest teachings for the weather protection hood, convex hood geometry, or the air turbulence / defined flow separation device. Reference 1 is stronger for the cableway chair, supporting/haulage cable, suspension, and weather hood limitations.
CN109664896A was not used in the rejection because it is directed to a gondola/cableway cabin with through holes for ventilation and cooling. It is relevant to airflow through a cableway cabin, but Reference 3 provides a clearer English-language U.S. patent publication for the cabin, ventilation openings, porous case, and perforated/air-permeable structure teachings. CN109664896A may be retained as backup art for cabin side-wall ventilation or through-hole features if needed.
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