DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 10/15/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority or Provisional
Priority to 10/16/2023 is recognized.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/15/2024 are acknowledged.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending in the application. Claims 1-5, 8-16 are rejected. Claims 6-7 are Objected. Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are 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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), but are allowable over the prior arts.
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 6-9 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.
Claim 6 recite “… the drive finger is moved with the conveyor past or along the first gate surface”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 7 is objected because of same informality.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 8 recite “… drive finger is moved with the conveyor past or along the second gate surface”, which lacks antecedent basis and therefore makes the claims indefinite Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 9 is objected because of same informality.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Mollet (US 4,785,738) in view of Wakabayashi (US 3,894,629).
Regarding claim 1, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi disclose the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A branch parking track garage for cableway vehicles, comprising: a feeder track which is connected to a first branch parking track and a second branch parking track, Mollet, Col. 1, ll. 5-14, Col. 2, ll. 40-70, Col. 3, ll. 1-44, and Fig. 5, teaches an aerial ropeway transport installation having a transfer rail 40 linking to multiple parking rails 44 by means of switching points 54.
the first branch parking track and the second branch parking track each terminating at ends remote from the feeder track; Mollet teaches the parking rails 44 are arranged in a loop with parallel straight sections 56 ending at remote curved sections 58, 60.
a first branch parking track conveyor on the first branch parking track and the second branch parking track, which extends from the feeder track to a transfer point on the first branch parking track and second branch parking track, and a second branch parking track conveyor on the first branch parking track and the second branch parking track, which extends from the transfer point to the ends of the first branch parking track and second branch parking track, wherein the first branch parking track conveyor and the second branch parking track conveyor overlap in a region of a respective transfer point, Mollet also teaches a transfer chain 46 extending along rail 40 and separate chains 62, 64 and 66 extending along the parking rails 44, passing over cogwheels 74, 76 at the transition zones to maintain continuous flow.
a continuous conveyor with a conveyor movable in two conveying directions is arranged in a region of the first branch parking track and the second parking branch parking track, the continuous conveyor having a first conveying section in which the conveyor extends along the first branch parking track between the transfer point of the first branch parking track and the end of the first branch parking track in order to form the second branch parking track conveyor of the first branch parking track, and the continuous conveyor having a second conveying section in which the conveyor extends along the second branch parking track between the transfer point of the second branch parking track and the end of the second branch parking track to form the second branch parking track conveyor of the second branch parking track, Mollet explicitly discloses “The same chain 62 can extend along two straight sections 56 or all the straight sections of the parking tracks, …”.
a first drive finger and a second drive finger are arranged on the conveyor of the continuous conveyor at a distance from one another in the direction of the conveyor, Mollet explains that the chains 62 of the straight sections 56 have “drive pins 68 whose distance apart l is slightly greater than the length of the cars 14”.
and wherein a distance between the first drive finger and the second drive finger in the conveying direction on the conveyor is adopted such that the first drive finger is located in a region of the transfer point of the first branch parking track or is located in a region of the continuous conveyor facing the feeder track in the transverse direction between the first branch parking track and the second branch parking track when the second drive finger is located in the region of the end of the second branch parking track, and vice versa. Mollet teaches determining the spacing distance to functionally synchronize the pin positions with the track curves to prevent impacts while occupying minimum storage space.
Mollet does not explicitly disclose:
the first drive finger and second drive finger are each movable back and forth between a first drive finger position and a second drive finger position, wherein the first and second drive fingers in the second drive finger position project further from the conveyor by an engagement distance in a transverse direction transverse to the conveying direction than in the first drive finger position,
However, Wakabayashi teaches:
Wakabayashi, Col. 1, ll. 60-68, Col. 2, ll. 6-13, Col. 3, ll. 52-68, Col. 4, ll. 1-44, Col. 11, ll. 25-55, and Figs. 16-17, teaches a continuous chain conveyor for accumulating articles featuring movable drive fingers that project transversely, disclosing a conveyor utilizing “pushers 35 tiltably” pivoted to a drive chain. The pushers 135 have an upper projection 135a projecting “obliquely upward” (transversely to the conveying direction) to engage the article, and can be pushed downward or tilted to disengage.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the continuous parking track conveyor of Mollet to incorporate the tiltable, transversely projecting pushers as taught by Wakabayashi, in order to allow the drive pins to engage and disengage from the vehicles for closely arranged accumulation, and preventing the rigid pins from binding or colliding with the cars when the branches are fully occupied.
Regarding claim 2, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mollet and Wakabayashi disclose:
The branch parking track garage according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first drive finger or the second drive finger is movable translationally and/or rotationally from the first drive finger position into the second drive finger position, and vice versa. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the continuous conveyor with movable drive fingers transitioning between a first and second position, as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
Wakabayashi, Col. 1, ll. 60-68, Col. 3, ll. 52-68, Col. 4, ll. 1-10, 19-25 and Figs. 7-10, 16-17, teaches that the movement of the drive fingers (pushers) between these positions is accomplished rotationally. And explicitly discloses that the pushers 35 are “tiltably pivoted to the drive chain”. And further teaches that each pusher 35 is “tiltably mounted, at an intermediate portion of its length … by means of a pivot 34” to allow it to rotate between the raised, engaged position and the depressed, disengaged position.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mollet and Wakabayashi disclose:
The branch parking track garage according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first drive finger or the second drive finder is movable by a drive finger drive on the conveyor or in the branch parking track garage from the first drive finger position into the second drive finger position, and vice versa. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the continuous conveyor with movable drive fingers transitioning between a first and second position, as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
Wakabayashi, Col. 6, ll. 1-11, 31-55, Col. 7, ll. 30-52 and Figs. 7-11, 16-17, teaches that the movement of the drive fingers (pushers) is controlled by a dedicated drive mechanism (a drive finger drive) located in the facility (the garage/conveyor frame). Discloses a “stopping means 55” that includes a “cam 56” which is actuated by a hydraulic cylinder 70. When the hydraulic cylinder 70 operates, it elevates the cam 56 so that a roller 38 on the pusher 35 rolls up the cam. forcing the pusher to turn about its pivot and move out of engagement (transitioning from the first drive finger position to the second drive finger position). And also teaches the “vice versa” motion, noting that to reverse this and bring the articles back into travel, the hydraulic cylinder 70 is operated in reverse to retrack, allowing the pusher to rise back into its engaged position under gravity.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mollet and Wakabayashi disclose:
The branch parking track garage according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first drive finger or the second drive finger is designed such that, when the at least one drive finger is in the second drive finger position, a force acting on the at least one drive finger in the direction of the end of the branch parking track can be absorbed by the at least one drive finger in order to transmit a driving force in the direction of the transfer point of the branch parking track, and a force acting on the at least one drive finger in the direction of the transfer point of the branch parking track moves the at least one drive finger from the second drive finger position, preferably translationally and/or rotationally, into the first drive finger position. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the continuous conveyor with movable drive fingers, as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
Wakabayashi, Col. 2, ll. 3-14, Col. 4, ll. 20-45, Col. 7, ll. 5-17 and Figs. 7-11, 16-17, teaches that the pushers 35 abuts against a stopper pin 46 positioned immediately below the pivot 34. And explicitly states, “the pin 46 serve as stoppers for preventing the upper projection 35a of the pusher 35 form turning rearward from the raised position”, which locks the pusher, allowing it to absorb force and transmit a driving force to the load. And teaches when the pusher assembly encounters a force from the opposite direction (such as contacting a stopped article on the conveyor), noting that the mechanism is “pushable downward by contact with a stopped article on the conveyor while traveling with the drive chain and to thereby tilt the mating pusher downward”. And explains that contact with a stopped article depresses the front of the pusher assembly (motion), causing the pusher to be “inclined, with its upper projection brought out of engagement” (moving rotationally from the second position/engaged to the first position/retracted).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Mollet and Wakabayashi disclose:
The branch parking track garage according to claim 4, wherein the at least one drive finger is arranged on the conveyor so that it can pivot between the first drive finger position and the second drive finger position, and a pivoting of the at least one drive finger in the direction of the end of the branch parking track is blocked, and pivoting of the at least one drive finger in the direction of the transfer point is enabled. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the continuous conveyor with movable drive fingers, as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
Wakabayashi, Col. 4, ll. 20-45, and Figs. 7-11, 16-17, teaches the one-way pivoting mechanism. And describes “pin 46” positioned below the pivot that “serve as stoppers for preventing the upper projection 35a of the pushers 35 from turning rearward” (blocking), while the finger is still free to be pushed downward/forward when yielding to a stationary article (enabling).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Mollet and Wakabayashi disclose:
The branch parking track garage according to claim 4, wherein a second sliding guide with a second guide surface is arranged in the region of the conveyor, and wherein the second guide surface interacts with the at least one drive finger when the at least one drive finger is located in the region of the second guide surface in order to move the at least one drive finger from the second drive finger position into the first drive finger position when the at least one drive finger is moved with the conveyor past or along the second gate surface. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the continuous conveyor with movable drive fingers, as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
Wakabayashi, Col. 6, ll. 1-55, and Figs. 7-11, 16-17, teaches a “stopping means 55” that comprises a “cam 56” (i.e., second sliding guide), positioned below the path of travel of the drive chain. And explicitly explains the interaction between the cam and the pusher (finger): “Consequently, as the roller 38 on the pusher 35 advancing in engagement with an article P rolls up on the rear slanting surface of the cam 56, the pusher 35 turns about the pivot 34, ….. lowering the upper projection 35a, and moves out of engagement with the front lug 50 of the article P”. the pusher “is subsequently inclined by the cam 56 in its elevated position, so that it remains inclined until it moves over the cam” (i.e., second guide surface moving ….).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Mollet and Wakabayashi disclose:
The branch parking track garage according to claim 4, wherein a second sliding guide with a second guide surface is arranged in the region of the conveyor in the region of the end of the first branch parking track and/or the second branch parking track, and wherein the second guide surface interacts with the at least one drive finger when the at least one drive finger is located in the region of the second guide surface in order to move the at least one drive finger from the second drive finger position into the first drive finger position when the at least one drive finger is moved with the conveyor past or along the second gate surface. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the continuous conveyor with movable drive fingers, as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
Mollet, Col. 2, ll. 63-68, and Figs. 5, teaches branch parking tracks that terminate at ends remote from the feeder track, disclosing parking rails 44 with straight sections 56 that end at remote curved sections 58, 60.
Wakabayashi, Col. 6, ll. 1-55, and Figs. 7-11, 16-17, teaches a second sliding guide (cam 56) that interacts with the drive finger (pusher 35) to force it from the engaged position into the retracted position as it moves past the cam. Col. 5, ll. 26-32, Col. 7, ll. 52-62, Col. 8, ll. 20-30 shows the disengaging cam 56 positioned before the junction of two conveyors to stop articles, and teaches placing the sliding guide mechanism at “desired portion of the first conveyor” where disengagement is required.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mollet and Wakabayashi disclose:
The branch parking track garage according to claim 1, wherein a preload element is provided on the conveyor, which automatically holds the first drive finger or the second drive finger in the second drive finger position, and the first drive finger or the second drive finger is movable from the second drive finger position into the first drive finger position by overcoming the effect of the preload element. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the continuous conveyor with movable drive fingers transitioning between a first and second position, as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
Wakabayashi, Col. 1, ll. 40-50, Col. 2, ll. 9-12, Col. 4, ll. 20-25, Col. 6, ll. 47-55, and Figs. 7-11, 16-17, teaches “Both the pusher 35 and lever 41 are normally maintained in raised position under gravity acting on the portions thereof …”, utilizes gravity acting on the offset mass of the pusher assembly as a biasing preload (preload element). And states: “it is necessary to use a spring which acts to push up the upper end of the pusher all the time” (i.e., spring preload). And further teaches that the preload effect is overcome when the pusher encounters a downward force such as the cam track 56 or a stopped article, which pushes the finger downward into the retracted position against the biasing force.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mollet and Wakabayashi disclose:
The branch parking track garage according to claim 1, wherein the first branch parking track conveyor of the first branch parking track and/or the first branch parking track conveyor of the second branch parking track is designed as a tire conveyor. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the continuous conveyor with movable drive fingers, as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
Mollet, Col. 2, ll. 43-68, Col. 3, ll. 41-44, teaches driving the detached cars using “… tyred wheels 38, acting on a friction face 36 of the carriage 22, ….”.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mollet and Wakabayashi disclose:
The method for parking cableway vehicles in a branch parking track garage according to claim 1, the method comprising: positioning the first drive finger in the region of the end of the first branch parking track, whereby the second drive finger is positioned in the region of the transfer point of the second branch parking track, and the second drive finger on the conveyor is brought from the second drive finger position into the first drive finger position or the second drive finger is positioned in the region of the continuous conveyor facing the feeder track in a transverse direction transverse to the conveying direction between the first branch parking track and the second branch parking track, or vice versa, and moving cableway vehicles with the first branch parking track conveyor of the first branch parking track and/or with the first branch parking track conveyor of the second branch parking track from the feeder track to the transfer point on the first branch parking track and/or the transfer point on the second branch parking track, and from there further onto the first branch parking track and/or the second branch parking track. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the continuous conveyor with movable drive fingers, as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
Mollet, Col. 1, ll. 5-14, Col. 2, ll. 49-68, Col. 6, ll. 47-55, Col. 7, ll. 5-15, and Figs. 1, 5, explicitly teaches a method of parking cableway cars by moving them from a transfer track to side storage tracks to protect them from weather. And teaches operating the continuous chains 62, 64, 66 to drive the detached cars 14 from the main transfer rail 40 (feeder track), through the switching points 54 (transfer points), and positively along the straight sections 56 of the parking rails. The modified Mollet utilizes a single continuous loop extending through both branches with spaced drive fingers, moving the first finger to the back of the first branch, positions the second finger at the front of the second branch. And further teaches that the drive fingers (pushers 35) are moved into the retracted position (first position) via a sliding cam.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 14. Mollet and Wakabayashi disclose:
The method for parking according to claim 14, wherein the cableway vehicles are pushed into the first branch parking track and/or the second branch parking track with the first branch parking track conveyor of the first branch parking track and/or with the first branch parking track conveyor of the second branch parking track. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the method of moving cableway vehicles into the branch parking tracks using a continuous conveyor having movable drive fingers, as discussed in rejection of claim 14.
Mollet, Col. 2, ll. 58-68, Col. 3, ll. 1-13, teaches that the chains 62, 64, 66 have drive pins 68 to drive the cars 14 along the parking rails 44.
Wakabayashi, Col. 1, ll. 60-68, Col. 8, ll. 49-53, explicitly teaches that the movable drive fingers are designed to push the loads, and designates the drive fingers as pushers 35. And describes the mechanic of the pushing action, stating that the upper projection 135a of the pusher engages the “rear side of the article P, with the result that the succeeding pusher 35 advances the stopped article P”.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mollet and Wakabayashi disclose:
A cableway having at least one cableway station, a plurality of cableway vehicles, and a branch parking track system according to claim 1, for parking at least one of the plurality of cableway vehicles. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the branch parking track garage, as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
Mollet, Col. 1, ll. 5-10, Col. 2, ll. 28-35, 48-55, “an aerial ropeway transport installation, notably a gondola lift or chair-lift having vehicles, notably cars or chairs suspended from grips …”. Mollet teaches that these vehicles operate out of terminals, explicitly describes the mechanics of “a terminal of a gondola lift” equipped with the transfer and parking tracks. And further teaches integrating this parking track loop into the cableway terminal specifically “to achieve a maximum car storage capacity” and for parking at least one of the vehicles at the end of the day.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Claims 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Mollet (US 4,785,738) in view of Wakabayashi (US 3,894,629), and further in view of Meindl (US 4,958,574).
Regarding claim 11, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1. Meindl discloses:
The branch parking track garage according to claim 1, wherein a conveyor drive is provided on the continuous conveyor in order to drive the conveyor in a first conveying direction and in an opposite, second conveying direction. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the continuous conveyor with movable drive fingers transitioning between a first and second position, as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
Meindl, Col. 3, ll. 26-34, Col. 5, ll. 48-65, Col. 6, ll. 60-68, and Fig. 1, teaches a garaging system where carriers are moved from a transport rail into storage via a drive device 6, which comprises an “endless chain 61”. The garaging system utilizes a “drive-reversing unit” 90, that allows the drive to be reversed to change the direction of movement of the chairs, and explains that it is “reversible in its direction of movement to allow recoupling of the carriers to the cable during movement of the cable in a direction opposite that in which the cable moves for decoupling and garaging of the carriers”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the continuous parking track conveyor of Mollet-Wakabayashi system with a reversible conveyor drive, as taught by Meindl, to tallow the same continuous chain conveyor be used for both loading vehicles into the tracks (the first conveying direction) and retrieving vehicles from the tracks to return to the main line (the second opposite conveying direction), in order to simplify the layout and maximize the utility of the conveyor loop.
Regarding claim 13, Mollet in view of Wakabayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mollet, and Meindl disclose:
A method for discharging cableway vehicles from a branch parking track garage according to claim 1, in which cableway vehicles are lined up next to one another on the first branch parking track and second branch parking track of the branch parking track garage, the method comprising: positioning the first drive finger in the second drive finger position in the region of the end of the first branch parking track, whereby the second drive finger is positioned in the region of the transfer point of the second branch parking track or in the region of the continuous conveyor facing the feeder track in a transverse direction transverse to the conveying direction between the first branch parking track and the second branch parking track, and moving the first drive finger in the second drive finger position with the conveyor in a first conveying direction from the region of the end of the first branch parking track in the direction of the transfer point of the first branch parking track, whereby the first drive finger in the second drive finger position contacts a part of a cableway vehicle that is closest to the end of the first branch parking track, and via the first drive finger, driving the cableway vehicle and pushing the cableway vehicle in the direction of the transfer point on the first branch parking track, whereby all cableway vehicles on the first branch parking track are pushed in the direction of the transfer point on the first branch parking track, so that each cableway vehicle comes into engagement with the first branch parking track conveyor of the first branch parking track and each cableway vehicle on the first branch parking track is moved from the transfer point on the first branch parking track with the first branch parking track conveyor of the first branch parking track in the direction of the feeder track, and wherein, by discharging the first branch parking track, the second drive finger is simultaneously positioned in the region of the end of the second branch parking track and is in the second drive finger position or is brought into the second drive finger position, and the second drive finger in the second drive finger position is moved with the conveyor in an opposite second conveying direction from the region of the end of the second branch parking track in the direction of the transfer point of the second branch parking track, whereby the second drive finger in the second drive finger position abuts a part of a cableway vehicle that is closest to the end of the second branch parking track, and the second drive finger drives this cableway vehicle and pushes it in the direction of the transfer point on the second branch parking track, whereby all cableway vehicles on the second branch parking track are pushed in the direction of the transfer point on the second branch parking track, so that each cableway vehicle comes into engagement with the first branch parking track conveyor of the second branch parking track and each cableway vehicle on the second branch parking track is moved from the transfer point on the second branch parking track with the first branch parking track conveyor of the second branch parking track in the direction of the feeder track. Mollet in view of Wakabayashi renders obvious the continuous conveyor with movable drive fingers transitioning between a first and second position, as discussed in rejection of claim 1.
Mollet, Col. 2, ll. 58-68, Col. 3, ll. 4-13, teaches parking cableway cars sequentially such that they are lined up next to one another to maximize storage capacity. And teaches operating the continuous parking chain 62 in a first conveying direction to derive and move the parked cableway vehicles 14 along the parking rails 44 to the transfer tracks (discharging the first branch). Since the combination established for claim 1 utilizes a single continuous loop conveyor extending through both branch tracks with spaced drive fingers, moving the first finger from the back of the first branch to its transfer point will move the second drive finger from the transfer point of the second branch to the back of the second branch.
Mollet teaches the method of moving cars out of the branches, but does not explicitly teach reversing the continuous loop to empty a second branch.
However, Meindl, Col. 3, ll. 26-34, Col. 4, ll. 29-34, Col. 6, ll. 60-68, and Fig. 1, teaches the method of operating a cableway garaging system by utilizing a reversible drive mechanism. And explicitly teaches a method where the drive is “reversed … to allow recoupling of the carriers to the cable during movement of the cable in a direction opposite that in which the cable moves for decoupling and garaging”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the continuous parking track conveyor of Mollet-Wakabayashi system with a reversible conveyor drive, as taught by Meindl, to tallow the same continuous chain conveyor be used for both loading vehicles into the tracks (the first conveying direction) and retrieving vehicles from the tracks to return to the main line (the second opposite conveying direction), in order to simplify the layout and maximize the utility of the conveyor loop.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Fifield (US 10,328,960) teaches a train system, with passenger cars capable of locomotion and of automatic coupling and decoupling vehicles.
Moritzhuber (US 7,685,947) teaches a cable railway system with a valley station and at least one mountain station. Transport vehicles such as cable cars are moved along a carrying and conveying cable and they are uncoupled from the cable in the stations and moved through the stations along a guide rail.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-16 are pending.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Morano can be reached on 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights