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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No.12,084,091. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the broadened claim language of the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the previously allowed claims because the cited claim anticipates the subject matter of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 1: Reference patent claim 1 teaches a method of performing at least one safety function on an aerial ropeway system comprising a plurality of carriers mounted on a ropeway cable, and a carrier unloading/loading station having a carrier unloading ramp and a carrier loading ramp (clm.1; lines 1-10), the method comprising: sensing, with a first forwardly directed radar beam, velocity and swinging displacement of an approaching carrier while the carrier is a distance from the unloading ramp (clm.1, lines 18-25); and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed velocity and swinging displacement (clm.1, lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 2: Reference patent claim 1 teaches sensing with a second radar beam directed downwardly and toward at least a portion of the unloading ramp, a skier fallen from a carrier (clm.1; lines 32-35); and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed fallen skier (clm.1; lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 3: Reference patent claims 1 and 2 teaches sensing with a third radar beam, directed transversely to the first radar beam, carrier swing of a carrier before the carrier enters or after it leaves the loading/unloading station and generating a third sensing signal in response thereto (clm.2); and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed carrier swing sensed by the third radar beam (clm.1; lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 4: Reference patent claim 1 teaches sensing with a fourth radar beam, a hazard condition of a carrier when said carrier is positioned within the unloading/loading station (clm.1; lines 28-32); and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed hazard condition (clm.1; lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 5: Reference patent claim 1 teaches transmitting said first forwardly directed radar beam from a location proximate a forward portion of the unloading/loading station (clm.1; lines 18-25).
Regarding claim 6: Reference patent claim 1 teaches transmitting said second radar beam from a location proximate a rear end of the unloading ramp (clm.1; lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 7: Reference patent claim 2 teaches transmitting said third radar beam from a location forward of said unloading/loading station (clm.2; lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 8: Reference patent claim 1 teaches transmitting said fourth radar beam from a location proximate a rear end of said unloading/loading station (clm.1; lines 26-31).
Regarding claim 9: Reference patent claim 1 teaches a method of performing at least one safety functions on an aerial ropeway system comprising a plurality of carriers mounted on a ropeway cable, and a carrier unloading/loading station having a carrier unloading ramp and a carrier loading ramp (clm.1; lines 1-10), the method comprising at least one of: sensing, with a first forwardly directed radar beam, velocity and swinging displacement of an approaching carrier while the carrier is a distance from the unloading ramp (clm.1; lines 18-25) and generating a first sensing signal in response thereto (clm.1; lines 15-17); and sensing with a second radar beam, directed downwardly and toward at least a portion of the unloading ramp, a skier fallen from a carrier (clm.1; lines 32-35) and generating a second sensing signal in response thereto (clm.1; lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 10: Reference patent claim 2 teaches sensing with a third radar beam, directed transversely to the first radar beam, carrier swing of a carrier before the carrier enters or after it leaves the loading/unloading station and generating a third sensing signal in response thereto (clm.2, lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 11: Reference patent claim 1 teaches sensing with a fourth radar beam, a hazard condition of a carrier when the carrier is positioned within the unloading/loading station (clm.1; lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 12: Reference patent claims 1 and 2 teach a method of performing a plurality of safety functions on an aerial ropeway system comprising a plurality of carriers mounted on a ropeway cable, and a carrier unloading/loading station having a carrier unloading ramp and a carrier loading ramp (clm.1; lines 1-10), the method comprising at least two of: sensing, with a first forwardly directed radar beam, velocity and swinging displacement of an approaching carrier while the carrier is a distance from the unloading ramp (clm.1; lines 18-25) and generating a first sensing signal in response thereto (clm.1; lines 15-17); sensing with a second radar beam directed downwardly and toward at least a portion of the unloading ramp, a skier fallen from a carrier (clm.1; lines 32-35) and generating a second sensing signal in response thereto (clm.1; lines 15-17); sensing with a third radar beam, directed transversely to the first radar beam, carrier swing of a carrier before the carrier enters or after it leaves the loading/unloading station (clm.1; lines 3-12) and generating a third sensing signal in response thereto (clm.1; lines 15-17); and sensing with a fourth radar beam a hazard condition of a carrier when the carrier is positioned within the unloading/loading station (clm.1; lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 13: Reference patent claims 1 and 2 teach a method of performing a plurality of safety functions on an aerial ropeway system comprising a plurality of carriers mounted on a ropeway cable, and a carrier unloading/loading station having a carrier unloading ramp and a carrier loading ramp (clm.1; lines 1-10), the method comprising at least two of: sensing, with a first forwardly directed radar beam transmitted from a location proximate a forward end of said unloading ramp, velocity and swinging displacement of an approaching carrier while the carrier is a distance from the unloading ramp (clm.1; lines 18-25) and generating a first sensing signal in response thereto (clm.1; lines 15-17); sensing with a second radar beam, transmitted from a location proximate a rearward of said unloading ramp and directed downwardly and toward at least a portion of the unloading ramp, a skier fallen from a carrier (clm.1; lines 32-35) and generating a second sensing signal in response thereto (clm.1; lines 15-17); sensing with a third radar beam, transmitted from a location forward of said unloading station and directed transversely to the first radar beam, carrier swing of a carrier before the carrier enters or after it leaves the loading/unloading station (clm.1; lines 3-12) and generating a third sensing signal in response thereto (clm.1; lines 32-35); and sensing with a fourth radar beam, transmitted from a location proximate a rearward end of said loading station, a hazard condition of a carrier when the carrier is positioned within the unloading/loading station (clm.1; lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 14: Reference patent claim 2 teaches wherein said transmitting said second radar beam and said transmitting said fourth radar beam comprise transmitting both said second and fourth radar beams from the same location (clm.1, lines 26-33).
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 contains the reference character “40” within line 2 which should be removed for consistency.
Claim 9, line 1: “functions” should be “function”.
Claim 13, line 10: “rearward” should be “rearward end”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is 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.
Claims 1, 5-9, 12 and 13 contain various directional limitations including “forwardly”, “rear” and “rearwardly” which have no established relativity within the claims except to each other, making it unclear to Examiner which directions Applicant is intending within the claims.
Claims 3 and 10 contains the indefinite pronoun “it” within line 3. Please replace with the noun to which it refers.
Claims 12 and 13 contains the indefinite pronoun “it” within lines 12 and 15 respectively. Please replace with the noun to which it refers.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the same location" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4 and 11 are likewise rejected due to their dependence upon a rejected claim.
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, 3-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moritzhuber et al. (US 20100018434 A1) in view of Schnyder (CH 716205 A2).
Regarding claim 1: Moritzhuber teaches a method of performing at least one safety function on an aerial ropeway system comprising a plurality of carriers mounted on a ropeway cable, and a carrier unloading/loading station having a carrier unloading ramp and a carrier loading ramp (Fig.1), the method comprising: sensing, with a first forwardly directed sensor beam, velocity and swinging displacement of an approaching carrier while the carrier is a distance from the unloading ramp (7; Fig.1); and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed velocity and swinging displacement (Para.[0028]). Moritzhuber does not teach that the sensor is specifically a radar sensor.
However, Schnyder teaches the use of radar beam sensors to monitor carrier movements within an aerial ropeway (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber to utilize a radar sensor since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3: Moritzhuber further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: sensing with a third sensor beam, carrier swing of a carrier before the carrier enters or after it leaves the loading/unloading station and generating a third sensing signal in response thereto; and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed carrier swing sensed by the third radar beam (Para.[0029]). Moritzhuber does not teach that the sensor is specifically a radar sensor or that the third radar beam is directed transversely to the first radar beam.
However, Schnyder teaches the use of additional radar sensors within a monitoring area wherein a third radar sensor is directed transversely to the first radar sensor (Para.[0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber to utilize a radar sensor that is directed transversely to the first radar sensor to allow more precise monitoring of the same area with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4: Moritzhuber does not teach sensing with a fourth radar beam, a hazard condition of a carrier when said carrier is positioned within the unloading/loading station; and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed hazard condition.
However, Schnyder teaches sensing with a fourth radar beam (25; Fig.2), a hazard condition of a carrier when said carrier is positioned within the unloading/loading station; and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed hazard condition (Para.[0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber with the sensor locations as taught within Schnyder to include hazard monitoring within the station for increased passenger safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5: Moritzhuber further teaches the method of claim 1 further comprises transmitting said first forwardly directed sensor beam from a location proximate a forward portion of the unloading/loading station (Fig.1). Moritzhuber does not teach that the sensor is specifically a radar sensor.
However, Schnyder teaches the use of radar beam sensors to monitor carrier movements within an aerial ropeway (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber to utilize a radar sensor since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7: Moritzhuber further teaches the method of claim 3 further comprising transmitting said third sensor beam from a location forward of said unloading/loading station (Para.[0029]). Moritzhuber does not teach that the sensor is specifically a radar sensor.
However, Schnyder teaches the use of radar beam sensors to monitor carrier movements within an aerial ropeway (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber to utilize a radar sensor since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8: Moritzhuber does not teach transmitting said fourth radar beam from a location proximate a rear end of said unloading/loading station.
However, Schnyder teaches transmitting said fourth radar beam (25; Fig.2) from a location proximate a rear end of said unloading/loading station (monitoring area A; Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber to utilize a radar sensor since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9: Moritzhuber teaches a method of performing at least one safety functions on an aerial ropeway system comprising a plurality of carriers mounted on a ropeway cable, and a carrier unloading/loading station having a carrier unloading ramp and a carrier loading ramp (Fig.1), the method comprising: sensing, with a first forwardly directed sensor beam, velocity and swinging displacement of an approaching carrier while the carrier is a distance from the unloading ramp (7; Fig.1) and generating a first sensing signal in response thereto (Para.[0028]). Moritzhuber does not teach that the sensor is specifically a radar sensor.
However, Schnyder teaches the use of radar beam sensors to monitor carrier movements within an aerial ropeway (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber to utilize a radar sensor since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10: Moritzhuber further teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising: sensing with a third sensor beam, in addition to the first sensor beam (Para.[0019]), carrier swing of a carrier before the carrier enters or after it leaves the loading/unloading station and generating a third sensing signal in response thereto (Para.[0029]). Moritzhuber does not teach that the sensor is specifically a radar sensor or that the third radar beam is directed transversely to the first radar beam.
However, Schnyder teaches the use of additional radar sensors within a monitoring area wherein a third radar sensor is directed transversely to the first radar sensor (Para.[0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber to utilize a radar sensor that is directed transversely to the first radar sensor to allow more precise monitoring of the same area with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11: Moritzhuber does not teach sensing with a fourth radar beam, a hazard condition of a carrier when the carrier is positioned within the unloading/loading station.
However, Schnyder teaches sensing with a fourth radar beam (25; Fig.2), a hazard condition of a carrier when the carrier is positioned within the unloading/loading station (Para.[0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber with the sensor locations as taught within Schnyder to include hazard monitoring within the station for increased passenger safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12: Moritzhuber teaches a method of performing a plurality of safety functions on an aerial ropeway system comprising a plurality of carriers mounted on a ropeway cable, and a carrier unloading/loading station having a carrier unloading ramp and a carrier loading ramp (Fig.1), the method comprising: sensing, with a first forwardly directed sensor beam, velocity and swinging displacement of an approaching carrier while the carrier is a distance from the unloading ramp (7; Fig.1) and generating a first sensing signal in response thereto (Para.[0028]); and sensing with a third sensor beam, in addition to the first sensor beam, carrier swing of a carrier before the carrier enters or after it leaves the loading/unloading station and generating a third sensing signal in response thereto (Para.[0029]). Moritzhuber does not teach that the sensor is specifically a radar sensor or that the third radar beam is directed transversely to the first radar beam.
However, Schnyder teaches the use of additional radar sensors within a monitoring area wherein a third radar sensor is directed transversely to the first radar sensor (Para.[0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber to utilize a radar sensor that is directed transversely to the first radar sensor to allow more precise monitoring of the same area with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13: Moritzhuber teaches a method of performing a plurality of safety functions on an aerial ropeway system comprising a plurality of carriers mounted on a ropeway cable, and a carrier unloading/loading station having a carrier unloading ramp and a carrier loading ramp (Fig.1), the method comprising: sensing, with a first forwardly directed sensor beam transmitted from a location proximate a forward end of said unloading ramp (7; Fig.1), velocity and swinging displacement of an approaching carrier while the carrier is a distance from the unloading ramp and generating a first sensing signal in response thereto (Para.[0028]); sensing with a third sensor beam, transmitted from a location forward of said unloading station in addition to the first sensor beam, carrier swing of a carrier before the carrier enters or after it leaves the loading/unloading station and generating a third sensing signal in response thereto (Para.[0029]). Moritzhuber does not teach that the sensor is specifically a radar sensor or that the third radar beam is directed transversely to the first radar beam.
However, Schnyder teaches the use of additional radar sensors within a monitoring area wherein a third radar sensor is directed transversely to the first radar sensor (Para.[0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber to utilize a radar sensor that is directed transversely to the first radar sensor to allow more precise monitoring of the same area with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moritzhuber et al. (US 20100018434 A1) in view of Michel et al. (FR 2898321 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Moritzhuber teaches a method of performing at least one safety function on an aerial ropeway system comprising a plurality of carriers mounted on a ropeway cable, and a carrier unloading/loading station having a carrier unloading ramp and a carrier loading ramp (Fig.1), the method comprising: sensing, with a first forwardly directed sensor beam, velocity and swinging displacement of an approaching carrier while the carrier is a distance from the unloading ramp (7; Fig.1); and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed velocity and swinging displacement (Para.[0028]). Moritzhuber does not teach that the sensor is specifically a radar sensor.
However, Michel teaches the use of radar beam sensors to monitor carrier movements within an aerial ropeway (see attached EPO translation; Pg.4, lines 27-31]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber to utilize a radar sensor since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2: Moritzhuber does not teach sensing with a second radar beam directed downwardly and toward at least a portion of the unloading ramp, a skier fallen from a carrier; and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed fallen skier.
However, Michel teaches sensing with a second radar beam (sensor 26; Fig.3) directed downwardly and toward at least a portion of the unloading ramp, a skier fallen from a carrier; and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed fallen skier (Pg.4, lines 32-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber with the additional sensor locations as taught within Michel to include hazard monitoring within the station for increased passenger safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4: Moritzhuber does not teach sensing with a fourth radar beam, a hazard condition of a carrier when said carrier is positioned within the unloading/loading station; and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed hazard condition.
However, Michel teaches sensing with a fourth radar beam, a hazard condition of a carrier when said carrier is positioned within the unloading/loading station; and taking appropriate corrective action based upon the sensed hazard condition (operation of additional sensors 26; Fig.3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber with the additional sensor locations as taught within Michel to include hazard monitoring within the station for increased passenger safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6: Moritzhuber does not teach transmitting said second radar beam from a location proximate a rear end of the unloading ramp.
However, Michel teaches transmitting said second radar beam from a location proximate a rear end of the unloading ramp (section T3; Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber with the additional sensor locations as taught within Michel to include hazard monitoring within the station for increased passenger safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8: Moritzhuber does not teach transmitting said fourth radar beam from a location proximate a rear end of said unloading/loading station.
However, Michel teaches transmitting said fourth radar beam from a location proximate a rear end of said unloading/loading station (section T3; Fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber with the additional sensor locations as taught within Michel to include hazard monitoring within the station for increased passenger safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13: Moritzhuber teaches a method of performing a plurality of safety functions on an aerial ropeway system comprising a plurality of carriers mounted on a ropeway cable, and a carrier unloading/loading station having a carrier unloading ramp and a carrier loading ramp (Fig.1), the method comprising: sensing, with a first forwardly directed sensor beam transmitted from a location proximate a forward end of said unloading ramp (7; Fig.1), velocity and swinging displacement of an approaching carrier while the carrier is a distance from the unloading ramp and generating a first sensing signal in response thereto (Para.[0028]). Moritzhuber does not teach that the sensor used is a radar sensor or sensing with a second radar beam, transmitted from a location proximate a rearward of said unloading ramp and directed downwardly and toward at least a portion of the unloading ramp, a skier fallen from a carrier and generating a second sensing signal in response thereto; and sensing with a fourth radar beam, transmitted from a location proximate a rearward end of said loading station, a hazard condition of a carrier when the carrier is positioned within the unloading/loading station.
However, Michel teaches sensing with a second radar beam (26; Fig.3), transmitted from a location proximate a rearward of said unloading ramp and directed downwardly and toward at least a portion of the unloading ramp (section T3; Figs.2 and 3), a skier fallen from a carrier and generating a second sensing signal in response thereto (Pg.4, lines 32-48); and sensing with a fourth radar beam, transmitted from a location proximate a rearward end of said loading station, a hazard condition of a carrier when the carrier is positioned within the unloading/loading station (operation of additional sensors 26; Fig.3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber with the additional radar sensor locations as taught within Michel to include hazard monitoring within the station for increased passenger safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14: Moritzhuber does not teach wherein said transmitting said second radar beam and said transmitting said fourth radar beam comprise transmitting both said second and fourth radar beams from the same location.
However, Michel teaches wherein said transmitting said second radar beam and said transmitting said fourth radar beam comprise transmitting both said second and fourth radar beams from the same location (multiple sensors 26 along section T3; Figs.2 and 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Moritzhuber with the additional radar sensor locations as taught within Michel to include hazard monitoring within the station for increased passenger safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
