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 statement (IDS) submitted on 05/16/2025 is 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 1-14 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.
VERTICAL AXIS / VERTICAL PLANE AMBIGUITY
Claim 1 recites “the left leg and the right leg being arranged on opposing sides about a vertical plane that is aligned with the transport direction,” and later recites “the track support assembly extending in the transport direction and along the vertical axis.” The term “the vertical axis” lacks antecedent basis in claim 1. Claim 1 previously introduces a “vertical plane,” not a “vertical axis.” A vertical plane and a vertical axis are different geometric references, and the claim does not identify whether “the vertical axis” is intended to be the same as the earlier-recited vertical plane, an axis lying within the vertical plane, an axis normal to the vertical plane, a centerline of the system, or some other structural reference.
Further, the phrase “extending in the transport direction and along the vertical axis” is unclear because the claim does not explain how the track support assembly extends both in the transport direction and along a vertical axis. The specification appears to use the vertical plane 109 as a center plane aligned with the track/retraction tube orientation, for example at paragraphs [0091] and [0197]-[0199], but claim 1 recites a different geometric feature, namely a “vertical axis.” Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear. Claims 2-14 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and inherit this indefiniteness.
Suggested correction: Applicant may amend claim 1 to clarify whether the intended reference is “the vertical plane,” “a vertical center plane,” “a centerline lying in the vertical plane,” or another defined geometric reference. For example, if intended, applicant may amend “along the vertical axis” to “along the vertical plane” or “within the vertical plane,” provided there is support in the original disclosure.
LEFT LEG / LEFT LEG ASSEMBLY AND RIGHT LEG / RIGHT LEG ASSEMBLY
Claim 1 introduces “a left leg assembly” and “a right leg assembly,” but then recites “the left leg having a left lower end and a left upper end” and “the right leg having a right lower end and a right upper end.” The claim does not previously introduce “a left leg” or “a right leg” as components distinct from the left leg assembly and right leg assembly. It is therefore unclear whether “the left leg” and “the right leg” refer to the previously recited left/right leg assemblies, to individual leg members within those assemblies, or to different structural components.
This ambiguity continues in claim 2, which recites “the left leg is positioned” and “the right leg is positioned,” and in claim 7, which recites “the left leg includes a left leg tube assembly” and “the right leg includes a right leg tube assembly.” Because the claims do not clearly establish whether “leg” and “leg assembly” are coextensive, the scope of the claimed frame assembly is unclear.
Suggested correction: Applicant may amend the claims to consistently use “left leg assembly” and “right leg assembly,” or expressly introduce a “left leg” and a “right leg” as components of the respective assemblies.
ANGLE MEASUREMENT AMBIGUITY
Claims 2-4 are indefinite because the claimed “first angle” and “second angle” are not defined with sufficient clarity. Claim 2 recites that “the left leg is positioned at a first angle relative to the vertical plane” and that “the right leg is positioned at a second angle relative to the vertical plane.” However, the claims do not identify the line, axis, centerline, surface, projection, segment, or endpoint-to-endpoint reference of the left leg or right leg from which the angle is measured. This is particularly unclear because the specification describes each leg assembly as being made from multiple segments, including bottom and upper leg tube assemblies and multiple connected segments. See, e.g., paragraphs [0098]-[0110].
The drawings and description appear to show outboard angular relationships in a top or plan view, for example FIGS. 68-69 and paragraphs [0197]-[0203]. However, claim 2 does not state whether the angle is measured in plan view, in side elevation, relative to a centerline projection of the leg assembly, relative to a straight line between the lower and upper ends, relative to one particular straight segment, or relative to another reference. Thus, claims 2-4 do not clearly define how to determine whether the first and second angles fall within the claimed scope.
Suggested correction: Applicant may amend claim 2 to identify the measurement reference, such as “as viewed from above,” “between the vertical plane and a projection of a centerline of the left leg assembly onto a horizontal plane,” or another supported objective measurement reference. Applicant may also clarify whether the angle is measured using the whole leg assembly, one segment, a centerline, or a line connecting the lower and upper ends.
CLAIM 5 - “FIRST LEG ASSEMBLY” AND “FURTHER STRAIGHT SEGMENTS”
Claim 5 is indefinite because it recites “the first leg assembly,” but claim 1 does not provide antecedent basis for a “first leg assembly.” Claim 1 recites a “left leg assembly” and a “right leg assembly.” It is unclear whether claim 5’s “first leg assembly” refers to the left leg assembly, the right leg assembly, either one of them, an additional leg assembly, or some other structure.
Claim 5 is further indefinite because it recites “the first leg assembly is constructed of a plurality of straight segments; and the first leg assembly is constructed of a plurality of further straight segments.” The repeated reference to “the first leg assembly” makes it unclear whether the claim intends to require that the same leg assembly has two different pluralities of segments, whether the second clause was intended to refer to the right leg assembly, or whether another unrecited assembly is intended. The phrase “further straight segments” also lacks a clear antecedent or structural relationship to the previously recited “plurality of straight segments.”
Suggested correction: Applicant may amend claim 5 to recite, for example, “the left leg assembly is constructed of a plurality of straight segments; and the right leg assembly is constructed of a plurality of further straight segments,” if that is the intended scope and if supported by the original disclosure.
CLAIM 9 - “BY THE WAY”
Claim 9 is indefinite because it recites “the retraction system is gravity driven by the way.” The term “the way” lacks antecedent basis and does not identify a structural element or functional relationship in the claim. Although the surrounding language also recites a “weight,” the claim as written does not clearly state that the retraction system is gravity driven by the weight. Therefore, the claim scope is unclear. Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 9 and inherit this indefiniteness.
Suggested correction: Applicant may amend “by the way” to “by the weight,” if that is the intended meaning and if supported by the original disclosure.
CLAIM 11 - ALIGNMENT OF THE RETRACTION TUBE, TRACK ASSEMBLY, VERTICAL PLANE, AND TRANSPORT DIRECTION
Claim 11 is indefinite because it recites that “the vertical plane passes through, and is aligned with, both the retraction tube and the track assembly,” and further recites that “the retraction tube and the track assembly spatially define the orientation of the vertical plane, and are aligned with the transport direction.” The claim does not clearly specify what “aligned with” means in this context. It is unclear whether the retraction tube and track assembly must be collinear, parallel, coplanar with the vertical plane, centered on the vertical plane, intersected by the vertical plane, or merely generally arranged symmetrically about the vertical plane.
The ambiguity is heightened because claim 10 recites a retraction tube in which a weight is slidably disposed, while claim 11 appears to require that the retraction tube is “aligned with the transport direction.” The claim does not clarify whether the retraction tube itself is aligned with the transport direction or whether the vertical plane containing the retraction tube and the track assembly is aligned with the transport direction. The scope of claim 11 is therefore unclear.
Suggested correction: Applicant may amend claim 11 to recite the intended geometric relationship expressly, for example that “the vertical plane contains a longitudinal axis of the track assembly and passes through the retraction tube,” or that “the retraction tube and track assembly lie in the vertical plane,” if supported by the original disclosure.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS / INFORMALITIES
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 9 are objected to because of informalities. Claim 2 appears to lack terminal punctuation. Claim 3 recites “1 degrees” and should be corrected to “1 degree.” Claim 5 appears to contain a drafting error by twice reciting “the first leg assembly,” where the second instance may have been intended to refer to the right leg assembly or another structure. Claim 9 recites “by the way,” which appears to be a typographical error for “by the weight.” Appropriate correction is required.
References Relied Upon
Ref. 1: Moss, US 2009/0266267 A1, “System for Tower- and Cable-Based Transportation Structure.”
Ref. 2: Sleaddventures, US 12,337,248 B1, “Gravity-Powered Zip Line Trolley Return System.”
Ref. 3: Boren et al., US 2013/0239843 A1, “Trolley Braking System.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ref. 1.
───────
Claim 1
A system for engaging with a user, the system for transporting the user forward from a first position, in a transport direction, to a second position, the system comprising:
a frame assembly including:
a left leg assembly, the left leg having a left lower end and a left upper end, and the left lower end being secured upon a left supporting base, and
a right leg assembly, the right leg having a right lower end and a right upper end, and the right lower end being secured upon a right supporting base, and
the left leg and the right leg being arranged on opposing sides about a vertical plane that is aligned with the transport direction;
a Y-connection assembly, the Y-connection assembly connected to both the upper end of the left leg and the upper end of the right leg;
a track support assembly, the track support assembly being connected to, and supported under, the Y-connection assembly, the track support assembly extending in the transport direction and along the vertical axis;
a track assembly, the track assembly being supported by the track support assembly, and the track assembly including a track;
a trolley, the trolley movably positioned upon the track so as to move from the first position to the second position; and
a grab device that is supported by the trolley, the grab device adapted for a user to engage with such grab device.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses a system for engaging with a user and transporting the user from a first position to a second position. Ref. 1 shows user 37 traveling along cable 33 between towers, with pulley 35 supporting the user through harness 39 and safety cable 41. Cable 33 defines the transport path and the transport direction, and pulley 35 moves along cable 33 from an upstream or first position toward a downstream or second position.
Ref. 1 discloses a frame assembly. Ref. 1 shows tower 44 formed by supports 1, footings 2, legs 4, and lattice framework 6. These components collectively define a structural frame assembly that supports the cable-based transportation structure.
Ref. 1 discloses a left leg assembly and a right leg assembly. The opposed legs 4 of tower 44 correspond to the claimed left and right leg assemblies. Each leg 4 has a lower end secured at an associated support 1 and footing 2 and an upper end extending toward the upper tower region. The lower end of one leg 4 is secured upon a left supporting base formed by support 1 and footing 2, and the lower end of the opposed leg 4 is secured upon a right supporting base formed by another support 1 and footing 2.
Ref. 1 discloses the left leg and right leg arranged on opposing sides about a vertical plane aligned with the transport direction. Cable 33 defines the path along which pulley 35 and user 37 travel. A vertical plane extending through cable 33 and the path of travel is aligned with the transport direction. The opposed legs 4 of tower 44 are positioned on opposite lateral sides of that plane to provide balanced support for the cable-based transportation structure.
Ref. 1 discloses a Y-connection assembly connected to both the upper end of the left leg and the upper end of the right leg. The upper region of tower 44 joins the opposed legs 4 by lattice framework 6 and associated cable-support structure. The upper portions of the legs 4 converge into and are tied together by the upper tower framework. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the upper joined frame region, including lattice framework 6 and cable support 49, corresponds to the claimed Y-connection assembly because it connects the upper ends of the opposed legs and supports the cable-supporting structure.
Ref. 1 discloses a track support assembly connected to and supported under the Y-connection assembly. Cable support 49 and associated tower structure support cable 33 relative to tower 44. Cable support 49 is connected to and supported by the upper tower framework, including the joined upper portions of legs 4 and lattice framework 6. Cable support 49 supports the track/cable 33 in the direction of user travel.
Ref. 1 discloses a track assembly supported by the track support assembly and including a track. Cable 33 is the track along which pulley 35 travels. The cable 33 is supported by cable support 49 and tower 44.
Ref. 1 discloses a trolley movably positioned upon the track so as to move from the first position to the second position. Pulley 35 is movably positioned on cable 33 and carries user 37 along cable 33 between towers. Pulley 35 therefore corresponds to the claimed trolley, and cable 33 corresponds to the claimed track.
Ref. 1 discloses a grab device supported by the trolley and adapted for a user to engage. Harness 39 and safety cable 41 are supported from pulley 35 and are engaged by or attached to user 37 during travel. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the user-supporting harness/line structure corresponds to the claimed grab device because it is supported by pulley 35 and adapted for engagement by the user.
Accordingly, Ref. 1 discloses each limitation of claim 1.
───────
Claim 2
The system of claim 1, wherein:
the left leg is positioned at a first angle relative to the vertical plane, such that the left lower end is further away from the vertical plane than is the left upper end, the left upper end being forward of the left lower end; and
the right leg is positioned at a second angle relative to the vertical plane, such that the right lower end is further away from the vertical plane than is the right upper end, the right upper end being forward of the right lower end
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the system of claim 1 for the reasons set forth above.
Ref. 1 further discloses the claimed angular arrangement of the left and right legs. The opposed legs 4 of tower 44 extend from lower supports 1 and footings 2 toward the upper tower region. The legs 4 are arranged on opposite sides of the central travel plane extending through cable 33. The lower ends of the legs 4 are positioned outwardly at the supports 1 and footings 2, while the upper ends extend inwardly toward the upper joined tower structure.
Thus, Ref. 1 discloses a left leg 4 positioned at a first angle relative to the vertical plane through cable 33, with the left lower end farther away from the vertical plane than the left upper end. Ref. 1 also discloses a right leg 4 positioned at a second angle relative to the same vertical plane, with the right lower end farther away from the vertical plane than the right upper end.
Ref. 1 also discloses the legs 4 forming part of a tower structure that supports cable 33 along the transport direction. The upper portions of the legs 4 are arranged toward the cable-supporting region, and the lower portions are anchored outwardly at the supports 1 and footings 2. This satisfies the limitation that the upper ends are forward of the lower ends in the transport direction under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Accordingly, Ref. 1 discloses each limitation of claim 2.
───────
Claim 4
The system of claim 2, the first angle and the second angle are substantially the same, such substantially the same meaning within plus or minus 5 degrees from each other.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the system of claim 2 for the reasons set forth above.
Ref. 1 further discloses opposed legs 4 arranged as corresponding structural members of tower 44. The legs 4 are arranged on opposite sides of the cable path and vertical travel plane to provide balanced structural support. The tower structure is formed using corresponding legs 4 and lattice framework 6, and the opposed leg arrangement is substantially symmetrical with respect to the cable path and travel plane.
Because the opposed legs 4 are corresponding support members on opposite sides of the travel plane, the first and second angles are substantially the same. The arrangement of the legs 4 therefore satisfies the claimed requirement that the first angle and the second angle are within plus or minus 5 degrees from each other.
Accordingly, Ref. 1 discloses each limitation of claim 4.
───────
Claim 5
The system of claim 1, the first leg assembly is constructed of a plurality of straight segments; and
the first leg assembly is constructed of a plurality of further straight segments.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the system of claim 1 for the reasons set forth above.
Ref. 1 discloses leg/frame construction using multiple straight structural members. Ref. 1 shows legs 4 and lattice framework 6 forming tower 44. The legs 4 and lattice framework 6 are elongated structural members, and the lattice framework 6 includes a plurality of straight reinforcing members connected between tower portions.
To the extent claim 5 is interpreted as requiring one leg assembly to be constructed of a plurality of straight segments and a plurality of further straight segments, Ref. 1 discloses such construction through leg 4 and associated lattice framework 6. To the extent claim 5 is interpreted as containing a drafting error where the second instance of “the first leg assembly” was intended to refer to another leg assembly, Ref. 1 likewise discloses opposed leg assemblies formed by legs 4 and associated straight reinforcing members of lattice framework 6.
Accordingly, Ref. 1 discloses the structural subject matter of claim 5 under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The separate indefiniteness issue concerning “the first leg assembly” remains addressed under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
───────
Claim 6
The system of claim 1, the grab device is a rope.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the system of claim 1 for the reasons set forth above.
Ref. 1 further discloses a flexible user-engagement device supported by the trolley. User 37 is supported from pulley 35 by harness 39 and safety cable 41. Safety cable 41 is an elongated flexible member associated with the user-supporting structure and is connected to the trolley/cable system during transport.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “rope,” the flexible safety cable 41 and associated line structure correspond to the claimed rope because they are elongated flexible user-supporting members connected to the trolley-supported harness system. The rope/line structure is supported by pulley 35 and adapted for engagement by user 37 through harness 39.
Accordingly, Ref. 1 discloses each limitation of claim 6.
───────
Claim 7
The system of claim 1, wherein:
the left leg includes a left leg tube assembly that is constructed of at least one metal tube; and
the right leg includes a right leg tube assembly that is constructed of at least one metal tube.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the system of claim 1 for the reasons set forth above.
Ref. 1 discloses tower legs 4 and lattice framework 6 formed from rigid structural members. Ref. 1 further discloses that the tower components may be made from metal or other rigid materials. Ref. 1 also shows tube-frame construction in connection with platform tube frame 22. The tower structure therefore includes metal structural members suitable for forming tube-frame or tubular support assemblies.
The opposed legs 4 correspond to the claimed left and right legs. Each leg 4, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a tube assembly or elongated metal structural assembly. One leg 4 corresponds to the left leg tube assembly constructed of at least one metal tube, and the opposed leg 4 corresponds to the right leg tube assembly constructed of at least one metal tube.
Accordingly, Ref. 1 discloses each limitation of claim 7.
───────
Claim 12
The system of claim 1,
the left supporting base includes a left base plate, the left base plate including fasteners for securement into a supporting surface, such as concrete; and
the right supporting base includes a right base plate, the right base plate including further fasteners for securement into the supporting surface.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the system of claim 1 for the reasons set forth above.
Ref. 1 further discloses supporting bases for the opposed legs 4. The bases of legs 4 are affixed to supports 1 using footings 2 or other appropriate affixing structures. Ref. 1 discloses supports 1 made from concrete, steel, rebar, or similar foundation materials, and footings 2 securing the legs 4 to those supports.
The footing 2 associated with one leg 4 corresponds to the claimed left base plate, and the footing 2 associated with the opposed leg 4 corresponds to the claimed right base plate. The securement of footings 2 to supports 1 corresponds to fasteners for securing the base plates into a supporting surface, such as concrete. Ref. 1 therefore discloses a left supporting base including a left base plate and fasteners, and a right supporting base including a right base plate and further fasteners.
Accordingly, Ref. 1 discloses each limitation of claim 12.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 1.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and further in view of Ref. 3.
───────
Claim 3
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 1.
The system of claim 2, wherein:
the first angle is between 1 degrees and 22 degrees; and
the second angle is between 1 degrees and 22 degrees.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the system of claim 2 for the reasons set forth above. Ref. 1 discloses opposed legs 4 angled relative to the vertical plane through cable 33, with the lower ends of legs 4 positioned farther outwardly at supports 1 and footings 2 and the upper ends positioned inwardly toward the upper tower structure.
Ref. 1 does not expressly state that the first angle and second angle are between 1 degrees and 22 degrees. However, Ref. 1 discloses the same type of angled opposed-leg support structure. The only difference is the particular numerical angular range selected for the already-disclosed angled legs.
The claimed range of 1 degrees to 22 degrees represents a modest inward angle for laterally spaced support legs. Selecting such an angle would have been a routine structural design choice based on tower height, base footprint, desired lateral stability, expected loading, clearance around the travel path, and positioning of cable support 49 relative to supports 1 and footings 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 configure the first and second angles of Ref. 1’s opposed legs 4 to be between 1 degrees and 22 degrees in order to provide inwardly braced structural support while avoiding an unnecessarily wide base footprint. Ref. 1 already teaches angled opposed legs 4 supporting cable 33 and pulley 35. Selecting a modest angle within the claimed range would predictably maintain tower stability, reduce excessive lateral spread at supports 1, and keep the upper support region aligned with cable 33. The modification constitutes routine dimensional optimization of an already-disclosed tower geometry and would have yielded predictable structural results.
───────
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
The system of claim 1, the system further including a retraction system, the retraction system retracting the trolley from the second position to the first position.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the system of claim 1 for the reasons set forth above. Ref. 1 discloses cable 33, pulley 35, harness 39, safety cable 41, and user 37 traveling from a first position to a second position along cable 33.
Ref. 1 does not expressly disclose a retraction system that retracts pulley 35 from the second position back to the first position.
Ref. 2 discloses such a retraction system in the same field of zip-line/trolley transport. Ref. 2 discloses zip line cable 200, trolley 300, starting position 202, ending position 204, and trolley return system 100. Ref. 2 further discloses trolley return line 120 attached to trolley 300 and configured to pull trolley 300 back from ending position 204 to starting position 202. Ref. 2’s trolley return system 100 therefore retracts the trolley from the second position to the first position.
It would have been obvious to modify Ref. 1’s cable-and-trolley user-transport system by incorporating Ref. 2’s trolley return system 100. In the modified system, Ref. 1’s cable 33 corresponds to Ref. 2’s zip line cable 200, Ref. 1’s pulley 35 corresponds to Ref. 2’s trolley 300, and Ref. 2’s trolley return line 120 retracts Ref. 1’s pulley 35 from the second position back to the first position.
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 add Ref. 2’s trolley return system 100 to Ref. 1’s user-transport system to automatically return pulley 35 to the starting position after a user completes travel. Ref. 1 provides the tower, cable, trolley, and user-supporting structure, while Ref. 2 addresses the operational need to return a zip-line trolley after each ride. The combination would reduce manual retrieval, shorten reset time between users, improve ride throughput, and prepare pulley 35 for the next user without altering the basic operation of Ref. 1’s cable 33 and pulley 35. The modification applies a known zip-line return system for its intended purpose and would have produced predictable results.
───────
Claim 9
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2.
The system of claim 8, the system further includes a weight, and the retraction system is gravity driven by the way, the weight being mechanically attached to the trolley via a pullback line.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the system of claim 1, and Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 discloses the system of claim 8 for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 9 recites “by the way.” For purposes of this prior-art rejection, the phrase is interpreted consistently with the surrounding language as intending “by the weight.” The separate 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is maintained.
Ref. 2 discloses a weight and a gravity-driven trolley retraction system. Ref. 2 discloses counterweight 124, trolley return line 120, first spool 112, second spool 114, counterweight suspension element 118, and drive belt 122. Counterweight 124 is mechanically coupled to trolley 300 through the return-line and spool arrangement. Gravity acting on counterweight 124 provides the force that causes trolley return line 120 to pull trolley 300 back toward starting position 202.
In the proposed combination, Ref. 2’s counterweight 124 corresponds to the claimed weight, and Ref. 2’s trolley return line 120 corresponds to the claimed pullback line. The pullback line is mechanically attached to Ref. 1’s pulley 35, corresponding to the claimed trolley, so that gravity acting on counterweight 124 retracts pulley 35 from the second position to the first position.
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 Ref. 1/Ref. 2 retraction system gravity driven by a weight because Ref. 2’s counterweight 124 provides an automatic return force without requiring a motor, electrical supply, hydraulic actuator, or manual retrieval. Applying Ref. 2’s counterweight-based return system to Ref. 1 would simplify installation, reduce maintenance, and provide a consistent reset force suitable for repeated recreational user-transport cycles. The modification applies a known gravity-powered trolley return mechanism to a known cable-and-trolley transportation system and would have produced predictable results.
───────
Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and further in view of Ref. 3.
The system of claim 9, the retraction system including a retraction tube in which the weight is slidably disposed.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the system of claim 1, and Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 discloses the system of claim 9 for the reasons set forth above.
Ref. 1 and Ref. 2 disclose the cable/trolley transport system and the gravity-driven trolley return system, including counterweight 124 and trolley return line 120. However, Ref. 1 and Ref. 2 do not expressly disclose a retraction tube in which the weight is slidably disposed.
Ref. 3 discloses a zip-line trolley system using a counterweight and associated retraction/braking components. Ref. 3 discloses counterweight 48, retraction rope 52, retraction reel 50, and retraction rope pulley 78. Ref. 3 further discloses the counterweight 48 positioned within a tube or cylindrical enclosure associated with support pole 20. The tube or enclosure guides and contains the vertical movement of counterweight 48 during operation.
It would have been obvious to modify the Ref. 1/Ref. 2 gravity-driven retraction system by placing Ref. 2’s counterweight 124 within a retraction tube as taught by Ref. 3. In the modified system, the retraction system includes a retraction tube in which the weight is slidably disposed.
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 counterweight of the Ref. 1/Ref. 2 system within a tube as taught by Ref. 3 to guide the weight’s vertical travel, prevent uncontrolled swinging, protect users and nearby structures from contact with the moving weight, and maintain alignment of the weight during repeated return cycles. Ref. 3 teaches a tube/enclosure for a moving counterweight in a zip-line environment. Applying that known containment feature to Ref. 2’s counterweight 124 in the Ref. 1 system would have been a predictable safety and alignment improvement.
───────
Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and further in view of Ref. 3.
The system of claim 10, the vertical plane passes through, and is aligned with, both the retraction tube and the track assembly, such that the retraction tube and the track assembly spatially define the orientation of the vertical plane, and are aligned with the transport direction.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the system of claim 1, Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 discloses the system of claim 9, and Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and Ref. 3 discloses the system of claim 10 for the reasons set forth above.
Ref. 1 discloses cable 33 as the track along which pulley 35 travels. Cable 33 defines the transport direction. A vertical plane extending through cable 33 and the path of travel is aligned with the transport direction.
Ref. 2 discloses trolley return line 120 attached to trolley 300 and arranged to return trolley 300 along zip line cable 200 from ending position 204 to starting position 202. Because trolley return line 120 is coupled to trolley 300 and functions to pull trolley 300 along zip line cable 200, Ref. 2 teaches arranging the return system generally along the path of trolley travel.
Ref. 3 discloses a tube/enclosure for counterweight 48. It would have been obvious to position the Ref. 3-style retraction tube in the same vertical plane as Ref. 1’s cable 33 and Ref. 2’s trolley return line 120. Such positioning aligns the retraction tube with the track assembly and transport direction. In the modified system, the vertical plane passes through and is aligned with both the retraction tube and the track assembly, and the retraction tube and track assembly spatially define the orientation of the vertical plane.
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 align the retraction tube with the track assembly and transport direction because Ref. 2’s return line 120 pulls trolley 300 along zip line cable 200, and Ref. 3 teaches guiding a counterweight in a tube. Positioning the tube in the same vertical plane as Ref. 1’s cable 33 would reduce lateral side loading on the return line, reduce twisting or skewing of the trolley, maintain a compact central return layout, and keep the weight’s travel coordinated with the trolley path. The modification is a predictable geometric arrangement of known retraction-system components.
───────
Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2 and further in view of Ref. 3.
The system of claim 1, further including a retraction tube assembly that contains a weight, the weight mechanically coupled to the trolley via a retraction cable,
the weight slidable in the retraction tube assembly so as to impose a force under gravity on the trolley.
Analysis
Ref. 1 discloses the system of claim 1 for the reasons set forth above.
Ref. 1 does not expressly disclose a retraction tube assembly containing a weight mechanically coupled to the trolley via a retraction cable.
Ref. 2 discloses a gravity-powered trolley return system 100 including counterweight 124, trolley return line 120, first spool 112, second spool 114, counterweight suspension element 118, and drive belt 122. Trolley return line 120 is attached to trolley 300 and pulls trolley 300 from ending position 204 toward starting position 202. Counterweight 124 imposes a gravity-derived return force on trolley 300 through the return-line and spool arrangement.
Ref. 3 discloses a tube or cylindrical enclosure containing counterweight 48. Ref. 3’s counterweight 48 moves vertically within the tube/enclosure and is used with retraction rope 52, retraction reel 50, and retraction rope pulley 78 in a zip-line/trolley environment.
It would have been obvious to combine Ref. 1’s user-transport system with Ref. 2’s gravity-powered trolley return system and further to house Ref. 2’s counterweight 124 in a Ref. 3-style retraction tube assembly. In the resulting system, Ref. 1 supplies cable 33 and pulley 35, Ref. 2 supplies counterweight 124 and trolley return line 120 mechanically coupled to the trolley, and Ref. 3 supplies the retraction tube assembly that contains and guides the weight. The weight is slidable in the retraction tube assembly and imposes a force under gravity on the trolley through the retraction cable.
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 combine Ref. 1’s cable/trolley user-transport system with Ref. 2’s gravity-powered trolley return system and further to house the counterweight in Ref. 3’s tube/enclosure to provide automatic trolley reset with controlled counterweight travel. Ref. 2 directly addresses returning a trolley after a zip-line ride, and Ref. 3 teaches enclosing a moving counterweight in a tube in a zip-line system. The combination would reduce manual reset effort, prevent counterweight swing, protect users and nearby structures, and maintain predictable alignment of the retraction system.
───────
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art Considered But Not Used
Albrich, US 6,360,669 B1, was considered but not used. Albrich relates generally to moving persons from a mountain station to a valley station using a suspended transport arrangement. Although Albrich is relevant to suspended user transportation, it is less close than Ref. 1 to the claimed frame, tower, cable/track, trolley, and user-engagement arrangement. Albrich also does not provide a stronger teaching for the gravity-driven trolley return system, retraction tube, or retraction tube attachment arrangement.
The International Preliminary Report / Written Opinion associated with the PCT family was reviewed only as part of the application record and was not relied upon as prior art. It is not listed as a reference in the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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