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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 04/28/2026.
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.
Claim 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the at least one securing element comprises the at least sensor” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel (US 20080169454 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 103279065 A) and Colmer (US 4057365 A).
Regarding claim 1, Michel discloses a bearing of a sheave assembly of a cableway (Michel is directed to aerial ropeway transport installations (ski lift; chair/gondola), with mixed compression/support sheave assemblies guiding the rope (Michel figs. 1-4, [0002]-[0004], and [0018]).), wherein the bearing comprises a receiving component and a component of the sheave assembly that is mounted on the receiving component via a connecting element so as to be pivotable about an axis of rotation (Michel discloses a cableway sheave assembly structure in which a component of the sheave assembly is mounted to a receiving component via a pin-type connecting element such that the sheave assembly is pivotable about an axis of rotation. Specifically, Michel describes a beam 14 that is arranged to be connected to the bearing/support structure by a swivel-pin 21, thereby permitting articulation about the pin axis (Michel [0022]–[0023]). Michel further describes a main sheave assembly 29 that is “mounted rotating” on a main pin 30 securely fixed to a pylon, which pin defines the axis about which the sheave assembly pivots (Michel [0030]). Accordingly, Michel teaches the claimed bearing environment including (i) a receiving component (e.g., the bearing structure fixed to the pylon) and (ii) a component of the sheave assembly (e.g., beam 14 / frame 28 / main sheave assembly 29) mounted on the receiving component via a connecting element (swivel-pin 21 and/or main pin 30) so as to be pivotable about an axis of rotation (Michel [0018], [0022]–[0023], [0030]).) and the sheave assembly is arranged in a target radial position with respect to the axis of rotation (Michel inherently establishes a normal/nominal installed position of the sheave assembly relative to the pivot pin axis by virtue of the pin-mounted bearing arrangement (e.g., “mounted rotating on a main pin 30” fixed to the pylon). See Michel [0030]. The “target radial position” corresponds to the designed installed position (i.e., the intended alignment/position about the pin axis) during normal operation.).
However, Michel does not expressly disclose an arrangement for monitoring, the arrangement comprising: at least one sensor arranged in a region of the bearing to detect a radial change in position of the sheave assembly relative to the axis of rotation from the target radial position, wherein the at least one sensor is designed to one of interrupt or enable a current flow upon detecting a prespecified radial change in position of the sheave assembly relative to the axis of rotation from a target radial position in order to trigger an action.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Zhang teaches providing at least one sensor in the region of a bearing/bush to detect a radial change in position from a normal (target) position. In particular, Zhang discloses a bearing shell (bearing bush) detection system in which a PLC controller 1 is connected to one or more displacement sensors for detecting bearing shell displacement, including a bearing shell radial displacement transducer 5 that detects displacement in the radial direction (i.e., “side-play amount radially”) in real time (Zhang, Abstract/Summary; see also Description of drawings list identifying elements 1–5). Zhang further explains that such displacement sensors are installed at/around the bush seat (e.g., the radial displacement transducer 5 is installed on the bush seat at the top of the bearing shell) so as to directly measure radial displacement of the bearing/bush relative to its intended position (Zhang, Summary/technical measures). Accordingly, Zhang teaches the claimed “at least one sensor arranged in a region of the bearing to detect a radial change in position of the sheave assembly relative to the axis of rotation from the target radial position.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhang’s radial displacement sensing (e.g., radial displacement transducer 5) into the pin/bearing region of Michel’s pylon-mounted ropeway sheave assembly—such as at or near the pivot interface about the swivel-pin 21 and/or main pin 30—to detect wear-induced radial looseness/positional change of the sheave assembly relative to the pin axis and thereby monitor bearing condition and improve safety/maintenance predictability.
However, Michel in view of Zhang does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one sensor is designed to one of interrupt or enable a current flow upon detecting a prespecified radial change in position of the sheave assembly relative to the axis of rotation from a target radial position in order to trigger an action. Specifically, Zhang teaches that a prespecified displacement threshold may be used to trigger an action. Specifically, Zhang discloses that when a displacement transducer output “surpasses setting value,” a signal is transmitted to the PLC controller 1, which in turn provides the information to a monitoring alarm computer 2 and a drive control system 3 such that the monitoring alarm computer 2 can generate an alarm and the drive control system 3 can control the motor to stop operation (Zhang, Summary/beneficial effect; see also Description of drawings identifying elements 1–3 and displacement sensing including radial displacement transducer 5).
Furthermore, in an analogous art, Colmer further teaches implementing the triggered action by a sensor/switch that interrupts or enables current flow via contact opening/closing. Colmer discloses a limit switch 40 having contacts 74, 76, 78 arranged such that, during normal operation, contacts 74–76 are closed to energize a holding relay 88 to supply power to the motor, whereas when bearing-related displacement occurs (shaft drop), contacts 74–76 open to de-energize relay 88 and stop the motor (interrupting current flow), and contacts 74–78 close to energize a warning light 92 (enabling current flow to a signaling circuit). See Colmer Abstract and col 3 ln 57 - col 4 ln 27.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michel’s pylon-mounted ropeway sheave assembly (pivotably mounted about swivel pin 21 and/or main pin 30) to include Zhang’s displacement-based bearing monitoring (e.g., radial displacement transducer 5 coupled to PLC 1) because Zhang teaches that comparing measured bearing displacement to a preset setting value provides early detection of wear/loosening and enables timely alarm and/or shutdown to improve operational safety. It further would have been obvious to implement the triggering function using Colmer’s limit-switch contact arrangement (switch 40, contacts 74/76/78, relay 88, indicator 92) because Colmer teaches a reliable mechanism to interrupt or enable current flow upon a detected displacement to stop equipment and/or provide a warning indication, thereby achieving the predictable result of protective action before major damage occurs.
Regarding claim 2, Michel in view of Zhang and Colmer discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the sheave assembly is a carrier unit of the sheave assembly or a carrier of the sheave assembly (Michel teaches that the ropeway sheave assembly includes structural members that function as a carrier unit (i.e., a structure that carries and supports multiple sheaves) and also describes a larger carrier/assembly that supports multiple modules. Specifically, Michel discloses a mixed sheave assembly 10 composed of sheave assembly modules M1, M2 mounted on opposite ends of a holding beam 14 (Michel [0018], [0028]). Each module M1, M2 includes pairs of holding arms 15,16,18,19 and a connecting frame 28 supporting joint pins 17, 20, with the sheaves 11,12 mounted rotating on pins by means of ball-bearings (Michel [0019], [0023], [0026]). Thus, Michel’s module structure (e.g., holding arms 15/16/18/19, frame 28, and/or holding beam 14) constitutes a carrier unit of the sheave assembly in that it carries and supports the sheaves 11,12 as a unit (Michel [0018]–[0019], [0026]–[0028]). Michel further discloses a larger sheave assembly arrangement in which the swivel-pins 21 of elemental beams 14 are supported by ends of a main sheave assembly 29, which is mounted rotating on a main pin 30 securedly fixed to a pylon (Michel [0030]). This main sheave assembly 29 functions as a carrier supporting the sheave assembly modules and associated sheaves. Accordingly, Michel teaches the claim 2 alternative that the sheave assembly is a carrier unit (module/beam/frame carrying sheaves) and/or a carrier (main sheave assembly 29 supporting modules), thereby meeting the limitation of claim 2 (Michel figs. 1-4; [0018]–[0019], [0026]–[0028], [0030]).)
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Michel in view of Zhang and Colmer discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the receiving component is a carrier of the sheave assembly and the component of the sheave assembly is a carrier unit of the sheave assembly (Michel teaches this claimed “carrier / carrier unit” relationship within a ropeway sheave assembly. In particular, Michel discloses an arrangement in which the swivel-pins 21 of elemental beams 14 (supporting sheave-assembly modules) are supported by the ends of a main sheave assembly 29, and the main sheave assembly 29 is mounted rotating on a main pin 30) securely fixed to a pylon (Michel [0030]). In this configuration, the main sheave assembly 29 functions as a carrier of the overall sheave assembly because it supports and carries the subordinate beam/module structures via the swivel-pin interfaces, and thus corresponds to the claimed receiving component (carrier). Further, each elemental beam 14 (and the associated module structure mounted thereon) functions as a carrier unit of the sheave assembly because it supports the sheaves and related articulated structures as a unit (e.g., modules mounted on beam 14) and is itself mounted to the carrier 29 via the swivel-pin 21 (Michel [0018], [0026]–[0028], [0030]). Accordingly, Michel expressly teaches the arrangement in which a carrier 29 serves as the receiving component and a carrier unit (e.g., beam 14 / module structure) serves as the component of the sheave assembly mounted thereon, meeting the limitation of claim 3.).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Michel in view of Zhang and Colmer discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is a limit switch or a proximity sensor (Colmer teaches using a limit switch as the sensor in a bearing-monitoring context to trigger protective actions by changing circuit continuity. Specifically, Colmer discloses a limit switch 40 positioned to detect a predetermined displacement (shaft drop due to thrust bearing wear/failure) and expressly provides that the system shuts down the motor and signals “upon the opening of the contacts in the switch” (Colmer Abstract). Colmer further discloses that the limit switch 40 includes switch contacts 74, 76, 78 arranged such that, during normal operation, contacts 74–76 are closed to energize a holding relay (88) to supply power to the motor, and upon displacement (shaft drop) contacts 74–76 open to de-energize relay 88 and stop the motor, while contacts 74–78 close to energize a warning light 92 (Colmer col 3 ln 57 - col 4 ln 27; FIGS. 4–5). Thus, Colmer teaches that the “at least one sensor” may be a limit switch, which corresponds to the limitation of claim 4. Also, Zhang additionally teaches displacement sensing at a bearing/bush via a displacement transducer (including a bearing shell radial displacement transducer (5)) for detecting radial displacement and providing an output to a control system (PLC 1) for alarm/shutdown when displacement exceeds a preset setting value (Zhang, Abstract/Summary; Summary/beneficial effect; Description of drawings list identifying elements 1–5).).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 1.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Michel (US 20080169454 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 103279065 A) and Colmer (US 4057365 A) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claims 7-8 recites a method configured to perform the same operations/functions recited in claim 1. The step limitations of claims 7-8 correspond to the operations/functions of claim 1 in method form, and the scope and content of the recited features are substantially the same as those addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel (US 20080169454 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 103279065 A) and Colmer (US 4057365 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Segafredo (US 4269123 A).
Regarding claim 5, Michel in view of Zhang and Colmer discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the receiving component has at least one securing element to bear the sheave assembly on the receiving component via the at least one securing element in the event of failure of the connecting element.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Segafredo teaches providing a securing/retaining element on the receiving/support structure that bears and retains a sheave/rocker assembly in the event of failure of the connecting spindle. In particular, Segafredo discloses a rocker having side-plates 20 that is mounted to rotate about a support spindle 22 carried by main side-plates 24, which correspond to a receiving/support component. Segafredo further discloses a cross-piece 78 mounted on the main side-plates 24 (via spindles 74, 76) that interferes with excessive movement and acts as a stop for the rocker. Segafredo expressly teaches that an appendix 88 associated with the cross-piece 78 “forms a temporary support” in the event of breaking of the spindle 22, thereby retaining/bearing the rocker/sheave support on the receiving structure even when the connecting element fails. See Segafredo figs. 1-2 and col 1 ln 47 - col 2 ln 45.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Segafredo’s receiver-mounted fail-safe retaining structure (cross-piece 78 and/or appendix 88) into Michel’s (as modified by Zhang and Colmer) pylon-mounted sheave assembly to provide a redundant support path upon pivot pin failure because Segafredo teaches that such structure temporarily supports/retains the assembly when the support spindle 22 breaks, thereby improving operational safety and avoiding catastrophic loss in an overhead cable transport environment.
Regarding claim 6, Michel in view of Zhang and Colmer discloses the arrangement according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one securing element comprises the at least one sensor. Specifically, Colmer teaches a sensor implemented as a limit switch 40 having contacts 74, 76, 78 that change state (open/close) to interrupt or enable current flow to trigger protective actions, such as stopping a motor via relay 88 and energizing a warning light 92 (Colmer Abstract, col 3 ln 57 - col 4 ln 27; FIGS. 4-5).
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Segafredo teaches a securing/retaining element on a receiving/support structure that bears/supports a sheave/rocker assembly in the event of failure of the connecting spindle. Specifically, Segafredo discloses a rocker having side-plates 20 mounted to rotate about a support spindle 22 carried by main side-plates 24, and further discloses a cross-piece 78 mounted to the main side-plates 24, wherein an associated appendix 88 “forms a temporary support” in the event of breaking of the spindle 22, i.e., the securing element bears/supports the assembly when the connecting element fails. See Segafredo figs. 1-2 and col 1 ln 47 - col 2 ln 45.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Segafredo’s receiver-mounted securing/retaining structure (cross-piece 78 and/or appendix 88) into Michel’s (as modified by Zhang and Colmer) pylon-mounted sheave assembly (e.g., about swivel-pin 21 and/or main pin 30) to provide a redundant support path in the event of pin/spindle failure or excessive movement, and to further integrate a Colmer-type limit switch 40 into/on that securing element because the securing element is the point of mechanical engagement in the failure condition and Colmer teaches a reliable contact-based switch output (contacts 74, 76, 78) for interrupting/enabling current flow to trigger shutdown/alarm. The combination yields the predictable result of a mechanically fail-safe support with immediate electrical detection/response when the securing element is engaged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument A: Applicant argues that Zhang discloses that the detection of bearing displacement merely triggers a monitoring, without stopping the motor. On that premise, Applicant contends that incorporating Colmer's motor-stopping switch into Zhang's system would result in shutting off Zhang's motor upon detection of displacement, and would thereby prevent Zhang from operating in its intended manner of monitoring the bush seat upon detection of displacement (Remarks, pp. 8, 17).
Examiner's response to Argument A: This argument is not persuasive because its premise is contradicted by Zhang's own disclosure. Zhang expressly teaches that when the measured displacement of the bearing bush or bearing pad seat exceeds the set value, a signal is sent to the PLC controller, the monitoring and alarm computer can make an alarm, and the drive control system can control the motor to stop working (Zhang, beneficial effects section). Zhang thus does not "merely" monitor; it already contemplates both alarming and stopping the drive upon a threshold displacement. Because Zhang's intended operation already includes shutdown, implementing that shutdown/alarm trigger by the contact-based mechanism of Colmer does not frustrate Zhang's purpose; it carries out a function Zhang expressly describes.
Argument B: Applicant argues that Zhang (directed to a bearing bush of a large drive motor) and Colmer (directed to a submersible thrust limit switch) are drawn from technical fields wholly unrelated to the technical field of Michel and to the subject matter of Applicant's claimed embodiments, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found no articulated reasoning with technical underpinning to consult them in modifying Michel's sheave assembly (Remarks, pp. 6–8, 15–17). Applicant further contends that Michel's pins are not driven elements that would experience the high rotational speeds and vibrations of a large-scale drive motor, where an imbalance may cause the radial displacement addressed in Zhang, and that neither situation of concern in Zhang would have been reasonably expected to be a concern in operating Michel's sheave assembly (Remarks, pp. 6–7, 16).
Examiner's response to Argument B: In response to applicant's argument that the applied art is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the problem addressed by the present invention is detecting a radial change in position of a bearing-mounted rotating element — arising from wear or looseness — so as to trigger an action before failure and thereby extend maintenance intervals (see present specification, [0005]–[0007]). Zhang is reasonably pertinent to precisely that problem: Zhang provides real-time detection of radial (and axial) displacement of a bearing, and its background frames the concern in terms of bearing wear and displacement of the bearing shell, alarming and shutting down before major failure occurs. Colmer is likewise reasonably pertinent: Colmer detects a predetermined bearing related displacement and, upon that displacement, opens contacts to de-energize a holding relay and stop the motor while closing other contacts to energize a warning light — i.e., it interrupts or enables current flow to trigger protective action upon a detected bearing displacement. Colmer's own background further confirms that radial direction bearing failure detection was known in the art, acknowledging prior indicators "concerned with movement in a radial direction of the shaft as opposed to axial movement" (col 1 ln 18-30). Both references are therefore reasonably pertinent to the inventor's problem and constitute analogous art.
Applicant's contention regarding the rotational speed and cause of displacement is likewise unpersuasive because it goes to the physical cause of the radial displacement, not to whether radial displacement sensing is pertinent to the inventor's problem. The claimed invention detects a radial change in position of the sheave assembly from its target radial position; it is not limited by, and does not depend upon, the mechanism producing that change (e.g., bearing wear, connecting-element looseness, or otherwise). That Zhang's displacement may arise from a different underlying cause does not render Zhang's radial displacement detection non-pertinent to detecting a radial change in position of a bearing mounted rotating element, which is the problem the inventor faced. This argument is deemed not persuasive.
Argument C: Applicant argues that Michel alone does not suggest monitoring the bearing or detecting a radial change in position of the sheave assembly, that Zhang alone is not directed to a sheave assembly or to a target radial position of a sheave assembly, and that Colmer alone is directed to a submersible thrust switch, such that the applied art fails to suggest the combination of features recited in claim 1 (Remarks, pp. 5–8, 13–17).
Examiner's response to Argument C: In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection does not rely on any single reference to teach every limitation. Michel supplies the cableway sheave assembly bearing environment — a component of the sheave assembly mounted on a receiving component (pylon fixed structure) via a connecting element (swivel-pin 21 and/or main pin 30) so as to be pivotable about an axis of rotation, and thereby arranged in a designed installed position about that pin axis (Michel [0018], [0022]–[0023], [0030]). Zhang supplies the radial displacement sensor arranged at the bearing region to detect radial positional change from the normal position and to trigger alarm/shutdown at a threshold. Colmer supplies the contact-based limit switch that interrupts or enables current flow to effect that triggering. In the combination, a radial displacement sensor placed at Michel's pin/bearing interface detects the radial change in position of the sheave assembly relative to the pin axis from its installed position, meeting the claim. This argument is deemed not persuasive.
Argument D: Applicant argues that neither Michel nor Zhang arguably suggests a target radial position of the sheave assembly, or detection of a radial position change of the sheave assembly from the target radial position, as recited in independent claim 1 (Remarks, pp. 4, 16).
Examiner's response to Argument D: Michel discloses that the sheave assembly component is mounted on the pylon-fixed receiving structure via the connecting element (swivel-pin 21 and/or main pin 30) so as to be pivotable about the axis of rotation, being "mounted rotating on a main pin 30 securedly fixed to a pylon" (Michel [0022]–[0023], [0030]). By virtue of that pin-mounted bearing arrangement, the sheave assembly necessarily occupies a designed, nominal installed position with respect to the pin axis during normal operation. That designed installed position is the "target radial position" recited in the claims — i.e., the intended radial position of the sheave assembly relative to the axis of rotation from which the claimed "radial change in position" is measured. The claim does not require the target radial position to be separately labeled or independently disclosed as such; it requires only an intended radial position relative to the axis, which Michel's installed pin-mounted arrangement provides. Applicant has identified no distinction between the claimed "target radial position" and the designed installed position of Michel's pin-mounted sheave assembly. This argument is deemed not persuasive.
Argument E: Applicant emphasizes that Colmer is directed to a submersible thrust limit switch mounted between a motor and a submersible pump to shut down the pump in the event a thrust bearing begins to fail, responsive to an axial drop of the shaft, and argues on that basis that Colmer does not supply the radial detection recited in the claims (Remarks, pp. 8, 14).
Examiner's response to Argument E: This argument is directed to a role Colmer was not cited to perform and is therefore unpersuasive. In the combination, the radial change in position is detected by Zhang's radial displacement sensing; Colmer is relied upon only for its teaching of the triggering mechanism — a contact-based switch that opens and closes contacts to interrupt or enable current flow (de-energizing a holding relay to stop the motor, and energizing a warning light) upon a detected, predetermined bearing displacement. The axial character of the displacement that actuates Colmer's own device is immaterial to that teaching; what Colmer supplies is a reliable means of converting a detected, threshold bearing displacement into an interruption or enabling of current flow to trigger a protective action, which is exactly the function recited for the claimed sensor. Claim 1 does not require the interrupting or enabling to be performed by a device that itself independently senses radial position; it requires the sensor to interrupt or enable a current flow upon detecting the prespecified radial change, and the combination provides that.
Argument F: Applicant argues that Michel is directed to reducing vibrations and damping dynamic effects by reducing the weight of the moving masses and the forces involved in moving the sheaves apart when the grip passes (Michel [0005]), and that Michel discloses no need in the art for monitoring the bearing or detecting a radial change in position of the sheave assembly (Remarks, pp. 5–7, 13–14).
Examiner's response to Argument F: Michel's silence regarding bearing monitoring is not a teaching away. Michel neither criticizes, discredits, nor otherwise discourages monitoring of its bearings, and a reference does not teach away merely by failing to disclose the feature supplied by a secondary reference. The motivation to monitor is supplied by Zhang and Colmer, not by Michel, and Michel's stated object of reducing moving mass and vibration is not inconsistent with, and does not discourage, the addition of bearing condition monitoring. This argument is deemed not persuasive.
Argument G: Applicant argues that the Examiner bears the initial burden of factually supporting a prima facie conclusion of obviousness, and that the Office Action fails to specify why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine Michel with Zhang and/or Colmer in the manner suggested, or to identify any reasoning with technical underpinning to modify Michel to use the displacement sensor of Zhang and the limit switch of Colmer (Remarks, pp. 11–12, 17).
Examiner's response to Argument G: This argument is not persuasive. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zhang's radial displacement sensing into the pin/bearing region of Michel's pylon-mounted sheave assembly, and to implement the resulting threshold-triggered action by Colmer's contact-based limit switch, in order to obtain the predictable result of early detection of wear-induced radial looseness of the sheave assembly about the pin axis, with a protective alarm and/or drive shutdown before major damage or failure occurs. This is a combination of known elements — a known radial displacement sensor (Zhang) and a known bearing-displacement-actuated limit switch (Colmer) — applied to a known bearing arrangement (Michel) to yield the predictable result of bearing-condition monitoring with protective response. Such a combination of familiar elements according to known methods, yielding no more than predictable results, is obvious. See MPEP 2143.
Argument H: Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing Segafredo would have found no disclosure of at least one sensor arranged to detect a radial change in position of the sheave assembly relative to the axis of rotation from the target radial position, wherein the sensor interrupts or enables a current flow upon detecting a prespecified radial change, as recited in independent claim 1; and that Segafredo merely discloses a safety device by which a falling of the cable is detected and the lift is stopped (Remarks, pp. 19–20).
Examiner's response to Argument H: This argument misapprehends the basis of the rejection and is not persuasive. Segafredo was not relied upon for the sensor and monitoring limitations of claim 1; those limitations are supplied by Michel in view of Zhang and Colmer, as addressed above. Segafredo was relied upon only for the securing-element limitations added by dependent claims 5 and 6. Attacking Segafredo for failing to teach limitations for which it was not cited does not rebut the rejection.
Argument I: Applicant argues, as part of its broader contention that the applied secondary references are drawn from unrelated fields, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found no discernible teaching in Segafredo that would have suggested modifying Michel's sheave assembly with the features recited in the wholly unrelated art of Zhang and Colmer (Remarks, pp. 15, 19).
Examiner's response to Argument I: This characterization does not apply to Segafredo and is not persuasive. Segafredo is directed to a safety device for a rocker of sheaves supporting an overhead cable of a gondola lift or chairlift — the same field of endeavor as Michel and as the present invention. Segafredo is, moreover, assigned to the same entity (Pomagalski S.A.) as Michel. Segafredo is therefore not "wholly unrelated" art; it is same-field cableway sheave art that a person of ordinary skill would readily have consulted.
Argument J: Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found no discernible teaching in Segafredo of the subject matter recited in claim 1 shown to be deficient in Michel in view of Zhang and Colmer, and no teaching in Segafredo suggesting the combination of features recited in claims 5 and 6; Applicant characterizes Segafredo as merely a safety device by which a falling of the cable is detected and the lift is stopped (Remarks, pp. 19–20).
Examiner's response to Argument J: This argument is not persuasive as to the limitations for which Segafredo was actually cited. As to claim 5, Segafredo discloses a cross-piece 78, mounted via spindles 74, 76 on the main side-plates 24 (the receiving/support structure), carrying an appendix 88 that "forms a temporary support for the cable 14 in case of the breaking of the spindle 22." Thus, upon failure of the connecting element (spindle 22), the securing element (cross-piece 78 / appendix 88) retains and temporarily supports the sheave/rocker assembly on the receiving structure and permits provisional running, reading on the securing-element limitation of claim 5.
As to claim 6, Segafredo further discloses that the cross-piece 78 carries a shear 92 which cuts the safety-line conductor 16 to signal a problem condition upon pivoting of the cross-piece, and states that the cross-piece 78 "can action a safety switch or any other signalling device." Segafredo thus teaches that the securing element itself comprises the sensor/switch that changes an electrical condition to trigger an action. It would have been obvious to implement that securing element carried triggering function using the contact-based interrupt/enable switch of Colmer, because the securing element is the point of mechanical engagement in the failure condition, and Colmer teaches a reliable contact-based output for interrupting or enabling current flow to effect shutdown and/or alarm. The combination yields the predictable result of a mechanically fail-safe securing element that additionally provides immediate electrical detection and protective response upon engagement. This rationale is supported by Segafredo's own teaching of a signalling device integrated into the securing element.
Argument K: Applicant's argument that the rejection is moot because "the at least one sensor" finds antecedent support in independent claim 1 (Remarks, p. 10) is not persuasive, because it is directed to a term that is not the source of the indefiniteness.
Examiner's response to Argument K: The antecedent basis defect in claim 6 arises from the recitation "the at least one securing element." The term "at least one securing element" is first introduced in claim 5. Claim 6, however, depends from claim 1, which recites no securing element. Accordingly, "the at least one securing element" in claim 6 lacks proper antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite. To the extent the prior action identified "the at least one sensor" as the deficient term, that identification is clarified herein: the deficiency is "the at least one securing element."
Claim 6 was not amended in the present response, and the indefiniteness therefore remains. The Examiner notes that amending claim 6 to depend from claim 5 would appear to overcome this rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights