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 .
________________________________________
Specification
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71 and 1.75(d)(1) because several reference numerals are inconsistent with the drawings and surrounding text. In paragraph 0036, the last longitudinal parking track section is identified as section 40 even though the drawings and surrounding text identify it as section 44. In paragraph 0041, the second longitudinal parking track section is identified as section 40 instead of section 41, and the final pair of longitudinal parking track sections is identified as sections 43, 43 instead of sections 43, 44. In paragraphs 0050, 0051, 0057, and 0063, the continuous conveyor is identified as conveyor 51 even though the drawings and surrounding text identify the continuous conveyor as conveyor 50 and the tire conveyor as conveyor 51. The abstract is also objected to under 37 CFR 1.72(b) because the phrase "a pusher dogs ... engages" is grammatically inconsistent in number. Correction is required.
Suggested Correction: In paragraph 0036, change the final reference to longitudinal parking track section "40" to "44"; in paragraph 0041, change the second reference to longitudinal parking track section "40" to "41" and change "43, 43" to "43, 44"; in paragraphs 0050, 0051 (both occurrences), 0057, and 0063, change the references to continuous conveyor "51" to "50"; and in the abstract, change "a pusher dogs ... engages" to "a pusher dog ... engages."
________________________________________
Claim Interpretation
The overlap limitations of claims 1 and 7 require physical drive overlap and release or engagement during the corresponding tire-speed change; they do not require the two drives to impose different positive velocities simultaneously. Paragraphs 0050 and 0057 expressly describe transfer to one drive and prevention of conflicting drive forces. In claims 11 and 14, transverse displacement includes diversion of the circulating conveyor path away from and back toward the vehicle, as shown in Figure 3 and paragraph 0051; an actuator translating the entire conveyor assembly is not required. In claim 4, 'the pusher dog' identifies the at least one engaged pusher dog introduced in claim 1.
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - US 4,785,738.
Reference 2 - US 4,699,064.
Reference 3 - US 2014/0305773 A1.
Reference 4 - US 3,338,026.
Reference 5 - US 3,894,629.
Reference 6 - US 3,523,504.
Reference 7 - US 4,843,970.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A parking storage facility for cableway vehicles with a meander-shaped parking track for accommodating cableway vehicles, wherein the parking track has at least a first longitudinal parking track section and a second longitudinal parking track section arranged at a distance from one another and wherein the first longitudinal parking track section and the second longitudinal parking track section are connected to each other via a first parking track curve section, wherein a cableway vehicle can be moved along the parking track in a conveying direction by a parking conveyor, comprising: (L2) a continuous conveyor of the parking conveyor having a traction device circulating in the conveying direction at a given continuous conveying speed; a plurality of pusher dogs configured on the traction device, wherein the continuous conveyor is configured to move the cableway vehicle in the conveying direction with at least one of the plurality of pusher dogs and at the continuous conveying speed along the first and second longitudinal parking track sections; (L3) a tire conveyor of the parking conveyor in the first parking track curve section, wherein the tire conveyor has a plurality of driven tires arranged one behind the other in the conveying direction and wherein the tire conveyor is configured to move the cableway vehicle in the conveying direction with the driven tires and at a tire conveying speed along the first parking track curve section; (L4) wherein the continuous conveyor and the tire conveyor overlap in a first overlap region from the first longitudinal parking track section to the parking track curve section and in a second overlap region from the parking track curve section to the second longitudinal parking track section; (L5) wherein the tire conveying speed of the tire conveyor increases in the first overlap region to accelerate the cableway vehicle and, wherein, engagement of the at least one pusher dog with the cableway vehicle is concurrently released; (L6) wherein the tire conveying speed of the tire conveyor decreases in the second overlap region to decelerate the cableway vehicle and, wherein at the same time, at least one of the plurality of pusher dogs comes into engagement with the cableway vehicle.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 teaches parking rails 44 for cableway cars 14, with parallel straight sections 56 connected by curved sections 58 and 60 in a meander (Figures 1 and 5; column 2, lines 48-68). (L2) Chain 62 circulates along straight sections 56 and carries drive pins 68 that entrain the cars at the lower straight-section speed; the same chain may serve two or all straight sections (Figure 5; column 3, lines 1-40). (L3) Reference 1 expressly permits replacing a faster curve chain with a pneumatic tyred-wheel train of the kind used on acceleration and deceleration sections (column 1, lines 47-62). Reference 2 supplies the known cableway implementation: successive friction drive sheaves 38 and 60 engage drive plate 36 on carriage 22 (Figures 3-6; column 3, lines 19-35; column 4, lines 18-33). (L4) Reference 1 does not expressly describe the tire/positive-drive overlaps. Reference 2 extends friction sheaves 60 into the sector occupied by drive wheel 52 and drive pins 56, where tire and pin drives cooperate during takeover (Figures 5-6; column 4, lines 18-33); Figures 9-10 and column 4, lines 53-62 also place the correction sector at the curve exit. Applying that overlapping handoff to each interface of Reference 1's tire-driven curve provides the two recited overlap regions. (L5) Reference 1 requires acceleration from the lower straight speed to the greater curve speed and expressly identifies acceleration/deceleration tire trains. In the first overlapping handoff, increasing tire speed to the curve speed moves car 14 ahead of upstream drive pin 68 and releases its engagement during acceleration. This is the predictable operation of the combination, not an assertion that either reference expressly describes the entire claimed sequence. (L6) At the second overlapping handoff, reducing tire speed from the curve speed to the downstream chain speed permits a synchronized drive pin 68 to take over during deceleration. Reference 2 teaches takeover determined by relative tire/pin speed and vehicle phase, and permits the sheaves to run free when the pin drives the vehicle faster (column 4, lines 18-33). The combination therefore transfers engagement without requiring two drives to impose different positive velocities on the same vehicle.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Reference 1's expressly proposed curve tire train using Reference 2's friction sheaves and overlapping tire/pin takeover at the entrance and exit, because Reference 1 requires greater curve speed and spacing with close straight-row spacing, while Reference 2 provides controlled vehicle takeover between friction and positive drives in the same cableway field. Increasing tire speed at entry and decreasing it at exit preserves that speed-and-spacing cycle, reduces abrupt transfer loads, and predictably releases the upstream pin and engages the downstream pin. The modification retains Reference 1's storage principle and uses the disclosed yielding friction-drive behavior rather than rigidly imposing conflicting speeds.
________________________________________
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The parking storage facility according to claim 1, wherein the continuous conveyor comprises one of: (L2) a separate traction device for each of the first longitudinal parking track section and the second longitudinal parking track section; or (L3) a single traction device for both the first longitudinal parking track section and the second longitudinal parking track section.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 1 analysis is incorporated. (L2) Reference 1 discloses separate chains 62 for straight sections 56. (L3) It also expressly permits one chain to serve two or all straight sections (Figure 5; column 3, lines 28-40). Either disclosed arrangement supplies the claimed alternative without changing the tire/pin handoffs of References 1 and 2.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 1's disclosed separate chains for independently arranged straight sections or its common chain for linked sections, because these are expressly taught ways to circulate drive pins along the parking rows. Each predictably retains the lower straight speed and synchronized transfer to and from the tire-driven curve.
________________________________________
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2 and 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The parking storage facility according to claim 1, further comprising a slip clutch configured to drive at least one tire of the tire conveyor in at least one of the second overlap region and the first overlap region.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 1 analysis is incorporated. References 1 and 2 do not expressly provide a slip clutch in the overlap-tire drive. Reference 3 teaches slip clutch assembly 10 coupling pulley 12 through steel disc 14 and magnets 16 to shaft 22; normal load rotates the shaft, while excess resistance permits slip (paragraphs 0014-0025 and 0033-0040; Figures 1, 5, and 6). Fitting that coupling between the drive pulley and shaft of at least one overlap tire provides the claimed tire drive. The tire application is the proposed modification; Reference 3's disclosed embodiment uses conveyor rollers.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to drive at least one overlap tire through Reference 3's pulley-to-shaft slip clutch, because temporary resistance or speed mismatch during Reference 2's tire/pin takeover can otherwise load the friction drive. Reference 3 expressly permits continued drive operation when a roller shaft meets excess resistance. The same torque-limiting coupling predictably allows normal tire drive while yielding at a selected load, reducing shock and damage during transfer.
________________________________________
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2 and 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The parking storage facility according to claim 1, wherein the pusher dog is U-shaped with two protruding legs, whereby an engagement region is formed between the legs in an entrainment position and wherein a portion of the cableway vehicle comes to rest in the engagement region during operation of the parking storage facility in order to bring the pusher dog into engagement with the cableway vehicle.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 1 analysis is incorporated. References 1 and 2 do not expressly give drive pin 68 a U-shaped, two-leg capture region. Reference 4 teaches chain-carried pusher element 14 with two projecting forks connected at their pivot, raised through slots 17 to entrain article 6 (Figure 2; column 2, lines 60-75; column 3, lines 1-10; claim 10). Reference 4 shows the forks pushing the article from behind; it does not expressly show a cableway hanger resting between them. The proposed modification fits that known two-leg pusher form to Reference 1's hanger arm 20 so that the arm is received in the region between the legs in the entrainment position, instead of contacting a single pin 68. The inter-leg reception is the predictable adaptation identified in the rejection, not an express disclosure of Reference 4's soap-cake embodiment.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adapt Reference 4's chain-carried forked pusher to receive the vehicle's hanger portion between its two legs in place of Reference 1's simple drive pin, because a two-sided engagement interface provides positional retention of that portion during the positive-drive portion of the tire/pin transfer. Reference 4 is reasonably pertinent to forming and positioning a chain-carried pusher that reliably engages a conveyed body; its packaging context is not the proposed cableway environment. Using the fork's inter-leg space for the hanger predictably reduces side slip and missed engagement while the existing handoff releases the pusher.
________________________________________
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 4, and 5.
Claim Text
(L1) The parking storage facility according to claim 4, further comprising a roller rotatably mounted at the free axial end of at least one protruding leg.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 4 analysis is incorporated. Reference 4's fork does not expressly carry a roller at a leg's free end. Reference 5 teaches pusher 35 pivoted at 34, with lower projection 35b carrying roller 38 on pin 39 at its free end (Figures 8-10). Mounting that roller arrangement at the free axial end of one fork leg supplies the claimed rotatable roller; Reference 5's illustrated roller cooperates with a guide, and its use on the vehicle-contact leg is the proposed adaptation.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount Reference 5's free-end roller on at least one fork leg of the combined pusher, because entry and exit of the engagement region involve relative contact with the guided vehicle portion. Substituting rolling for sliding contact at that end predictably reduces wear and friction during engagement and release while retaining the two-leg capture region.
________________________________________
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2, 4, and 6.
Claim Text
(L1) The parking storage facility according to claim 4, wherein at least one protruding leg is rotatably mounted on an end of the leg opposite the axial free end and further comprising a spring element on the pusher dog configured to hold the rotatably mounted leg in the entrainment position.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 4 analysis is incorporated. Reference 4 pivots pusher element 14 as a unit and does not expressly provide the claimed individual spring-held leg. Reference 6 teaches pusher unit 44 with dog 46 secured to shaft 58 in bushings 56 and leaf spring 60 acting through cam 59 to oppose rotation away from the operative position (Figures 2-4). Applying that pivot and resilient return to one fork leg puts the pivot at the end opposite its free end and holds the leg in the entrainment position. The individually yielding fork leg is the proposed combination, not Reference 6's literal fork structure.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide one fork leg with Reference 6's shaft pivot and spring return, because a vehicle portion entering or leaving positive engagement can temporarily deflect the leg and the spring can then restore the entrainment position. Reference 6's yielding dog addresses this same release-and-return problem. The combination predictably reduces jamming during transfer while maintaining the inherited two-leg engagement region.
________________________________________
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) A method for storing a cableway vehicle in a parking storage facility for cableway vehicles with a meander-shaped parking track for accommodating cableway vehicles, wherein, for storing, the cableway vehicle is moved with a parking conveyor in a conveying direction along the parking track with at least a first longitudinal parking track section and a second longitudinal parking track section, which are connected to each other via a first parking track curve section, comprising the steps of: (L2) moving the cableway vehicle along the first longitudinal parking track section and the second longitudinal parking track section by a continuous conveyor of the parking conveyor with a traction device circulating at a continuous conveying speed; (L3) engaging the cableway vehicle with at least one of a plurality of pusher dogs on the traction device and entraining the cableway vehicle in the conveying direction with the at least one of the plurality of pusher dogs; (L4) moving the cableway vehicle in the conveying direction along the first parking track curve section with a tire conveyor of the parking conveyor having a plurality of driven tires configured one behind the other in the conveying direction and driven at a tire conveying speed; (L5) increasing the tire conveying speed of the tire conveyor in a first overlap region from the first longitudinal parking track section to the first parking track curve section and accelerating the cableway vehicle relative to the continuous conveying speed; (L6) concurrently releasing the engagement of the at least one pusher dog on the cableway vehicle; (L7) reducing the tire conveying speed of the tire conveyor in a second overlap region from the first parking track curve section to the second longitudinal parking track section and decelerating the cableway vehicle; and (L8) concurrently bringing at least one of the plurality of pusher dogs into engagement with the cableway vehicle.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 stores cableway cars 14 on meander parking rails 44 with straight sections 56 joined by curves 58 and 60 (Figures 1 and 5). (L2) Chain 62 circulates at the straight-section speed. (L3) Drive pins 68 engage and entrain the cars (column 3, lines 1-28). (L4) Reference 1 expressly permits the faster curve chain to be replaced by an acceleration/deceleration pneumatic tire train (column 1, lines 47-62); Reference 2's driven sheaves 38 and 60 engage vehicle drive plate 36 (Figures 3-6). (L5) Reference 1 does not expressly perform the complete overlapping tire handoff. Reference 2 teaches cooperating friction sheaves 60 and drive pins 56 in an overlap sector at an entrance or exit, with takeover governed by relative speed and vehicle phase (Figures 5-6 and 9-10; column 4, lines 18-33 and 53-62). At the first interface of Reference 1's tire-driven curve, increasing tire speed accelerates the vehicle from the straight speed to the higher curve speed. (L6) As the vehicle gains on upstream pin 68, engagement releases concurrently during that handoff. (L7) At the second interface, reducing tire speed decelerates the vehicle to the next straight chain's speed. (L8) The synchronized downstream pin takes over during that reduction. These release/engagement operations are the predictable result of combining Reference 1's lower-higher-lower speed cycle with Reference 2's overlapping tire/pin takeover, not an allegation that Reference 2 alone supplies two storage-curve boundaries.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate Reference 1's tire-driven curve with Reference 2's overlapping tire/pin takeover at both interfaces, increasing tire speed at entry and reducing it at exit, because that operation preserves the expressly desired greater curve clearance and compact straight spacing while transferring drive smoothly. The relative-speed and phase-controlled takeover predictably releases the upstream pusher and engages the downstream pusher during the corresponding speed changes, with friction-drive yielding avoiding incompatible positive drive forces.
________________________________________
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 7, wherein: (L2) the cableway vehicle is moved in the first longitudinal parking track section and in the second longitudinal parking track section in each case by its own respective traction device; or (L3) the cableway vehicle is moved in the first longitudinal parking track section and in the second longitudinal parking track section by the same traction device.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 7 analysis is incorporated. (L2) Reference 1 moves cars along straight sections 56 with separate chains 62 in one arrangement. (L3) Reference 1 expressly permits the same chain to extend along two or all straight sections (Figure 5; column 3, lines 28-40). Those operations supply both recited alternatives.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the inherited method with either the separate straight-section chains or the common chain expressly taught by Reference 1, because both circulate the vehicle-engaging pins at the required straight speed and can retain synchronized transfer at the curve interfaces. Selection follows the disclosed row layout and predictably performs the claimed storing operation.
________________________________________
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 7, wherein the tire conveying speed is kept constant after the first overlap region up to the second overlap region.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 7 analysis is incorporated. Reference 1 maintains a synchronized higher curve speed to preserve the increased spacing between vehicles (column 1, lines 47-62; column 3, lines 13-28). With its expressly proposed tire-train substitution, driving the intermediate tires at that common higher speed keeps tire speed constant between the entrance acceleration and exit deceleration overlaps. Reference 1 does not expressly state that sentence for the tire embodiment; it is the predictable application of its constant-ratio curve drive to the expressly disclosed substitute.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to hold the middle tires at Reference 1's synchronized curve speed between the two transition overlaps, because the greater vehicle spacing already achieved at entry must be preserved through the curve. That common speed predictably maintains clearance without adding unnecessary speed changes between the boundary handoffs.
________________________________________
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2 and 7.
Claim Text
(L1) The parking storage facility according to claim 1, wherein the tire conveying speed at a beginning of the first overlap region corresponds to the continuous conveying speed and increases with a subsequent driven tire in the first overlap region.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 1 analysis is incorporated. References 1 and 2 do not expressly specify that the first overlap tire matches the straight-chain speed and a subsequent tire is faster. Reference 7 teaches wheel sets 11 and 12 adjoining the lower-speed sections and successive acceleration wheels 20 and 21 driven by stepped pulleys, wheel 21 rotating faster than wheel 20 (Figure 1; column 6). In the combined handoff, the first tire is set to the arriving chain-driven vehicle's speed and subsequent tires are stepped toward the higher curve speed, applying Reference 7's stepped wheel transition. The initial exact match to the straight-chain speed is the proposed speed selection to avoid an abrupt velocity difference at first contact, not an express statement that Reference 7 itself has the claimed low-speed straight chain.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 7's successive wheel-speed steps at the first overlap, starting at the arriving straight-chain speed, because its wheel transition smoothly raises cableway-vehicle speed toward a faster adjoining drive. Initial matching avoids a step in surface speed at first tire contact; a subsequent faster tire then accelerates the vehicle toward Reference 1's curve speed. The predictable result supplies both the initial match and the increase with a subsequent driven tire.
________________________________________
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The parking storage facility according to claim 1, wherein the continuous conveyor is displaced transversely to the conveying direction and away from the cableway vehicle at a beginning of the first overlap region to release engagement of the at least one pusher dog with the cableway vehicle, and wherein the continuous conveyor is displaced transversely to the conveying direction and toward the cableway vehicle at an end of the second overlap region to bring the at least one of the plurality of pusher dogs into engagement with the cableway vehicle.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 1 analysis is incorporated. Reference 1 shows chain 62 running beside the vehicle along each straight section 56 and turning transversely around end cogwheels 74 into a crosswise return segment at each curve interface (Figure 5; column 3, lines 19-28; claim 5). At the upstream end this routing carries the chain and its pin 68 away from the vehicle path; at the downstream end it returns the chain and pin toward that path. Reference 1 does not expressly locate these turns relative to tire overlap endpoints. When its curve chain is replaced by the disclosed tire train and Reference 2's overlapping takeover is used, locating the outgoing turn at the first-overlap beginning releases the pin as the tires take over, and locating the incoming turn at the second-overlap end engages the pin as the vehicle returns to chain speed. The displacement is the moving conveyor path's transverse diversion and return; the claim does not require translation of an entire stationary conveyor assembly.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's transverse end routing of chain 62 and locate the tire/pin handoff so that the chain turns away at the first-overlap beginning and returns at the second-overlap end, because the pins must clear the vehicle during the faster tire-driven curve and reenter engagement when the vehicle reaches the next straight-chain speed. Reference 1 already uses that routing to transfer control between successive drives. Retaining it with the expressly suggested tire substitute predictably supplies release and engagement without adding an independently actuated conveyor assembly.
________________________________________
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2 and 7.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 7, wherein the tire conveying speed of the tire conveyor at a beginning of the first overlap region corresponds to the continuous conveying speed and increases with a subsequent driven tire in the first overlap region.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 7 analysis is incorporated. References 1 and 2 do not expressly specify that the first overlap tire matches the straight-chain speed and a subsequent tire is faster. Reference 7 teaches wheel sets 11 and 12 adjoining the lower-speed sections and successive acceleration wheels 20 and 21 driven by stepped pulleys, wheel 21 rotating faster than wheel 20 (Figure 1; column 6). In the combined handoff, the first tire is set to the arriving chain-driven vehicle's speed and subsequent tires are stepped toward the higher curve speed, applying Reference 7's stepped wheel transition. The initial exact match to the straight-chain speed is the proposed speed selection to avoid an abrupt velocity difference at first contact, not an express statement that Reference 7 itself has the claimed low-speed straight chain.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 7's successive wheel-speed steps at the first overlap, starting at the arriving straight-chain speed, because its wheel transition smoothly raises cableway-vehicle speed toward a faster adjoining drive. Initial matching avoids a step in surface speed at first tire contact; a subsequent faster tire then accelerates the vehicle toward Reference 1's curve speed. The predictable result supplies both the initial match and the increase with a subsequent driven tire.
________________________________________
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2 and 3.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 7, further comprising driving at least one tire of the tire conveyor via a slip clutch in at least one of the second overlap region and the first overlap region.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 7 analysis is incorporated. References 1 and 2 do not expressly provide a slip clutch in the overlap-tire drive. Reference 3 teaches slip clutch assembly 10 coupling pulley 12 through steel disc 14 and magnets 16 to shaft 22; normal load rotates the shaft, while excess resistance permits slip (paragraphs 0014-0025 and 0033-0040; Figures 1, 5, and 6). Fitting that coupling between the drive pulley and shaft of at least one overlap tire performs the claimed driving step. The tire application is the proposed modification; Reference 3's disclosed embodiment uses conveyor rollers.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to drive at least one overlap tire through Reference 3's pulley-to-shaft slip clutch, because temporary resistance or speed mismatch during Reference 2's tire/pin takeover can otherwise load the friction drive. Reference 3 expressly permits continued drive operation when a roller shaft meets excess resistance. The same torque-limiting coupling predictably allows normal tire drive while yielding at a selected load, reducing shock and damage during transfer.
________________________________________
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 7, further comprising displacing the continuous conveyor transversely to the conveying direction and away from the cableway vehicle at a beginning of the first overlap region to release engagement of the at least one pusher dog on the cableway vehicle, and displacing the continuous conveyor transversely to the conveying direction and toward the cableway vehicle at an end of the second overlap region to bring at least one of the plurality of pusher dogs into engagement with the cableway vehicle.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 7 analysis is incorporated. Reference 1 shows chain 62 running beside the vehicle along each straight section 56 and turning transversely around end cogwheels 74 into a crosswise return segment at each curve interface (Figure 5; column 3, lines 19-28; claim 5). At the upstream end this routing carries the chain and its pin 68 away from the vehicle path; at the downstream end it returns the chain and pin toward that path. Reference 1 does not expressly locate these turns relative to tire overlap endpoints. When its curve chain is replaced by the disclosed tire train and Reference 2's overlapping takeover is used, locating the outgoing turn at the first-overlap beginning releases the pin as the tires take over, and locating the incoming turn at the second-overlap end engages the pin as the vehicle returns to chain speed. The displacement is the moving conveyor path's transverse diversion and return; the claim does not require translation of an entire stationary conveyor assembly.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to retain Reference 1's transverse end routing of chain 62 and locate the tire/pin handoff so that the chain turns away at the first-overlap beginning and returns at the second-overlap end, because the pins must clear the vehicle during the faster tire-driven curve and reenter engagement when the vehicle reaches the next straight-chain speed. Reference 1 already uses that routing to transfer control between successive drives. Retaining it with the expressly suggested tire substitute predictably supplies release and engagement without adding an independently actuated conveyor assembly.
________________________________________
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of References 2 and 4.
Claim Text
(L1) The method according to claim 7, wherein the at least one of the plurality of pusher dogs is U-shaped with two protruding legs, whereby an engagement region is formed between the legs in an entrainment position, and wherein the engaging comprises a portion of the cableway vehicle coming to rest in the engagement region to bring the pusher dog into engagement with the cableway vehicle.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 7 analysis is incorporated. References 1 and 2 do not expressly give drive pin 68 a U-shaped, two-leg capture region. Reference 4 teaches chain-carried pusher element 14 with two projecting forks connected at their pivot, raised through slots 17 to entrain article 6 (Figure 2; column 2, lines 60-75; column 3, lines 1-10; claim 10). Reference 4 shows the forks pushing the article from behind; it does not expressly show a cableway hanger resting between them. The proposed modification fits that known two-leg pusher form to Reference 1's hanger arm 20 so that the arm is received in the region between the legs in the entrainment position, instead of contacting a single pin 68. The inter-leg reception is the predictable adaptation identified in the rejection, not an express disclosure of Reference 4's soap-cake embodiment. During the adapted method, the hanger portion enters and comes to rest in that inter-leg region as the pusher entrains the vehicle.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the storing method with Reference 4's chain-carried forked pusher to receive the vehicle's hanger portion between its two legs in place of Reference 1's simple drive pin, because a two-sided engagement interface provides positional retention of that portion during the positive-drive portion of the tire/pin transfer. Reference 4 is reasonably pertinent to forming and positioning a chain-carried pusher that reliably engages a conveyed body; its packaging context is not the proposed cableway environment. Using the fork's inter-leg space for the hanger predictably reduces side slip and missed engagement while the existing handoff releases the pusher.
________________________________________
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amendments resolve the indefiniteness identified in claims 2, 7, and 8 (Remarks, p. 7). This is persuasive. Claim 2 now expressly limits the previously introduced continuous conveyor, claim 7 consistently identifies the second longitudinal parking track section and engaged pusher dog, and claim 8 states the separate/same traction alternatives clearly. The prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of those claims are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Reference 1 uses chain-to-chain handoff and Reference 2 provides only a local flow-correction sector rather than the entire two-overlap tire-driven storage curve (Remarks, pp. 8-10). These observations about the individual illustrated embodiments do not overcome the combination. Reference 1 expressly proposes a pneumatic tire train for its faster curve drive (column 1, lines 54-62). Reference 2 supplies the cooperating tire/pin handoff (Figures 5-6 and 9-10). The rejection applies that handoff at each of the two interfaces already required by Reference 1; it does not assert that Reference 2 alone discloses the entire facility.
Applicant argues that priority of one drive and sequential takeover exclude the claimed overlap and concurrent release or engagement (Remarks, pp. 10-12). This is not persuasive under the stated interpretation. The claims require the release or engagement to accompany the tire-speed change, not incompatible positive drive forces at the same instant. Reference 2 places sheaves 60 beside pin drive wheel 52 in the same sector and permits a sheave to run free when a pin moves the vehicle faster (column 4, lines 18-33). Reference 1 supplies the lower-higher-lower speed cycle. Using that cooperative interface during acceleration and deceleration yields the claimed concurrent handoff. Applicant's paragraph 0057 likewise prevents the two different drive speeds from acting on the vehicle at once.
Applicant argues that the combination relies on hindsight, changes Reference 1's fixed-ratio principle, and causes jamming or contradicts Reference 2's priority rule (Remarks, pp. 11-14). This is not persuasive. Reference 1 itself identifies the tire-train substitute while retaining greater curve speed and clearance (column 1, lines 47-62). Reference 2's cooperating and yielding drives expressly accommodate relative speed and phase. The combination retains Reference 1's spacing objective and synchronized endpoints and uses tire yielding during takeover; it does not lock two rigid drives to conflicting velocities or import the entire drive-wheel mechanism into the storage curve. Smooth transfer at both unavoidable drive interfaces is the technical reason stated in the prior rejection, not an objective supplied only by the present application.
Applicant argues that the earlier action did not establish an initial speed match followed by an increase with a subsequent tire (Remarks, p. 15). Claims 10 and 12 newly add that limitation. Reference 7 is added for those claims: wheels 20 and 21 have stepped speeds, with wheel 21 faster than wheel 20 (Figure 1; column 6). Starting the first overlap tire at the incoming chain speed applies that staged transition without an abrupt initial velocity difference. Reference 7 is not added to the grounds against claims 1-9.
Applicant argues that the earlier action did not address the transverse displacement now recited in claims 11 and 14 (Remarks, p. 15). These are newly presented limitations and are addressed in their claim units. Figure 3 and paragraph 0051 show transverse diversion of the circulating conveyor path; they do not require an independently actuated translation of the entire assembly. Reference 1, Figure 5 and claim 5, routes straight chain 62 away from and toward the vehicle path around end cogwheels 74. Retaining that routing at the beginning and end of the overlapping tire handoffs predictably releases and reengages the pusher. The new claims therefore do not establish allowable subject matter.
Applicant argues that adding a slip clutch merely repairs a problem artificially created by the proposed combination (Remarks, pp. 15-16). This is not persuasive. Reference 2 already uses overlapping friction and positive drives and expressly permits a friction sheave to yield when the positive drive takes over (column 4, lines 18-33). Reference 3 supplies a known pulley-to-shaft coupling that transmits normal drive torque and slips at excess resistance (paragraphs 0014-0025). Its use on an overlap tire addresses that known drive-transfer condition, rather than supplying a reason to invent the overlap after the fact.
Applicant argues that the packaging reference is outside cableway art and does not justify the claimed pusher modification (Remarks, p. 16). Reference 4 is relied upon as reasonably pertinent to positive engagement by a chain-carried pusher, not as a cableway system. Its two-fork pusher 14 is raised into an article-engaging position (Figure 2; claim 10). The rejection proposes adapting that fork to receive a hanger portion between the legs for stable entrainment in Reference 1. It does not treat the soap cake as literally resting in that region. The claimed vehicle context comes from Reference 1, while the proposed two-leg interface predictably improves positional retention during transfer. The dependent roller and resilient-leg modifications preserve this function.
________________________________________
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-15 are rejected. No claims are canceled or withdrawn.
The rejections of claims 2, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the Office action mailed June 12, 2026 are withdrawn because the September 10, 2026 amendment cures the identified defects.
________________________________________
Art Considered but Not Applied
WO 2010/082125 A1 discloses simultaneous engagement of transportation unit 2 with tire feed device 13 and endless conveyor 16. It does not provide a better whole-claim primary disclosure of the meander storage and lower-higher-lower speed cycle, and its overlap teaching is cumulative to the cooperating handoff used in the present combination.
US 4,563,955 describes a cableway friction-wheel drive but provides no stronger disclosure of the paired straight-to-curve and curve-to-straight handoffs than the applied references.
US 4,641,584 describes electrically driven cableway vehicles and associated station drives but does not provide a better mapping of the claimed meander storage and paired overlap operation.
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
