DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 11, 14 and 18-24 are currently pending. Claims 1, 11, 14 and 18-21 are maintained in rejection despite Applicants amendments and arguments filed 01/09/2026. Further, new claims 22-24 are additionally rejected. Examiner finds that Mowll (US 4,791,871) renders the amended limitations as obvious. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 14 and 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson (US 3,590,743) (“Larson ‘743”) in view of Mowll (US 4,791,871) and Jacob (US 9,809,933).
Referring to Claim 1: Larson ‘743 teaches a transportation system comprising a track switching mechanism, wherein the track switching mechanism comprises:
a running track (36, 37) that supports a wagon(s) (25) of a railroad vehicle; and
a switching track comprising a set of static components, wherein a gauge of the switching track (22, 23) is broader than a gauge of the running track (Fig. 5), and wherein said running track (36, 37) is positioned only in proximity to predetermined track bifurcation switching points and track merging switching points on a track network (Fig. 8) (Col. 2, lines 71-75), including a junction arrangement that acts as a building block for a network of rails (Fig. 8) (Col. 3, lines 8-12);
wherein the wagon(s) of the railroad vehicle is fitted with a set of running wheels (31-34) and a set of switching wheels (26-29), and the set of running wheels engage the running track, and the set of switching wheels engage the switching track to carry out a track changing operation for the railroad vehicle, and the set of switching wheels (26-29) is
wherein the switching track (22, 23) functions as a track changing mechanism for the railroad vehicle by engaging the switching wheels (26-29) of each of the wagons of the railroad vehicle with the switching track (Col. 6, lines 21-34) (Figs. 5, 8 and 9), disengaging the railroad vehicle from the running track (36, 37) (Fig. 8), and engaging the railroad vehicle with a second running track (36, 37 at the next station 40) (Col. 5, line 65-67) (see Figs. 8 and 9); and
wherein the switching track (22, 23) starts at a same level as the running track (36, 37) (see annotated Fig. 9 below depicting track 37 at the bottom and track 23 at the top of the same level in section A, before the tracks diverge to separate levels in section B) and maintains a predetermined height relative to the slowly lowering running track (36, 37) (Figs. 8 and 9) such that the railroad vehicle (124 of Fig. 9) traveling on the running track (36, 37) passes under the switching track (22, 23) and the switching track (22, 23) is elevated above the running track (36, 37), and when the switching track is engaged by the set of switching wheels (26-29), the railroad vehicle (224 of Fig. 9) is suspended vertically down from the switching track (Fig. 9); and
wherein the switching track and the running track run in parallel for a predetermined distance before the track bifurcation switching points and for a predetermined distance beyond the track merging switching points (Fig. 9); and
wherein, at the junction, the switching track and the running track are arranged to intersect in plan view such that the switching track provides a continuous, static guidance path across the junction from a first branch to a second branch of the running track without any moving rail components (Fig. 8) (Col. 6, lines 35-67).
PNG
media_image1.png
276
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Larson ‘743 does not teach that the set of switching wheels are vertically protracted or retracted. Rather, Larson ‘743 teaches horizontal protraction/retraction (Fig. 4) (Col. 6, lines 61-65). However, Mowll teaches a dual-mode transportation system, wherein the set of switching wheels (36, 38) are vertically protracted or retracted (Fig. 3A) (Col. 7, lines 39-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Larson ‘743 to retract the wheels vertically instead of horizontally, as taught by Mowll, in order to allow the wheels to be collapsed within a recess of the vehicle and reduce the horizonal footprint of the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success.
Larson ‘743 does not teach that the upper track (22, 23), being interpreted as the “switching track” in the rejection above, is positioned only in proximity to predetermined track bifurcation switching points and track merging switching points on a track network. Nor does Larson ‘743 teach that the upper “switching track” (22, 23) slowly raises to a predetermined height. Rather, Larson ‘743 teaches that the upper track (22, 23) maintains its height and performs more like a running track, and the lower track (36, 37) slowly lowers to a predetermined height in switching areas and performs more like a switching track (see Figs. 8 and 9). I.e., the roles of the upper track and the lower track as running track and switching track in Larson ‘743 are reversed in comparison to the instant application (compare Fig. 9 of Larson ‘743 with Fig. 6 of the instant application). However, Jacob teaches a multiple tier elevated light train, the train having lower running wheels (64) and upper switching wheels (60) (Fig. 2), wherein the switching track (140) is positioned only in proximity to predetermined track bifurcation switching points (Figs. 9A and 9B) (Col. 10, lines 22-46) and track merging switching points (Figs. 15A and 15B) (Col. 11, line 53 – Col. 12, line 11) on a track network, and wherein the switching track (140) slowly raises to a predetermined height relative to the running track (142) (see Figs. 9A and 9B copied on the next page for comparison with Fig. 6 of the instant application also copied on the next page) (Col. 10, lines 22-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Larson ‘743 to reverse the roles of the upper and lower tracks to have a running track run along the ground and have an upper switching track at bifurcation/merging switching points, which slowly raises to a predetermined height, as taught by Jacob, in order to allow for switching between multiple tiers of tracks that start at a ground level, for convenience and adaptability to ground transport, and thereby enhance efficiency with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image2.png
300
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
204
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Referring to Claim 11: Larson ‘743 further teaches the transportation system according to claim 1, wherein the switching track (36, 37) comprises one of a mono-rail and a parallel-rail system (Fig. 8).
Referring to Claim 18: Larson ‘743 further teaches the transportation system of claim 1, wherein the switching track (22, 23) is configured to guide the railroad vehicle to the second running track (36, 37 at the next station 40) and place the railroad vehicle (24) on the second running track (Col. 5, line 65-67) (Col. 6, lines 35-67) (see Figs. 8 and 9).
Referring to Claim 19: Larson ‘743 further teaches the transportation system of claim 1, wherein the set of switching wheels (26-29) on each of the wagons (24) of the railroad vehicle is activated (Col. 6, lines 35-38) when the railroad vehicle approaches any of the track bifurcation switching point and intends to switch from the running track (36, 37) to the second running track (36, 37 at the next station 40) (Col. 5, line 65-67) (Col. 6, lines 35-67) (see Figs. 8 and 9).
Referring to Claim 20: Larson ‘743 in view of Jacob, as applied to claim 1, further teaches the transportation system of claim 1, wherein the set of switching wheels (Larson ‘743, 26-29) on each of the wagons (Larson ‘743, 24) of the railroad vehicle is not activated and the railroad vehicle continues to travel on the running track (Larson ‘743, see vehicle 224 in Fig. 9 that continues to travel on track 23), when the railroad vehicle approaches any of the track bifurcation switching point and intends not to switch from the running track to the second running track (Larson ‘743, Col. 6, lines 35-45) (Larson ‘743, Fig. 9) (see also Jacob, Fig. 9B).
Referring to Claim 21: Larson ‘743 further teaches the transportation system of claim 1, wherein when the set of switching wheels (26-29) engage with the switching track (22, 23), the set of running wheels (31-34) is disengaged from the running track (36, 37) (see vehicle 224 in Fig. 9) (Col. 6, lines 35-45).
Referring to Claim 22: Larson ‘743 further teaches the transportation system of claim 1, wherein the junction comprises a top-view intersection of the switching track (22, 23) and the running track (36, 37) that defines a plurality of branches of the running track, and the switching track extends through the junction to provide a non-movable, static guidance path selectable by engagement of the switching wheels onboard the railroad vehicle (Fig. 8) (Col. 6, lines 35-67).
Referring to Claim 23: Larson ‘743 further teaches the transportation system of claim 22, wherein the switching track (22, 23) and the running track (36, 37) are arranged to run in parallel on approaches to and departures from the junction, such that the railroad vehicle separates from the first branch and is placement onto the second branch without moving rails (Fig. 9) (Col. 6, lines 21-34).
Regarding the instant claimed steps of method claims 14 and 24, note that the operation of the prior structure of claims 1 and 22, respectively, inherently requires the method steps as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the amended limitations of claim 1, including vertically retracted switching wheels, a junction that functions as a building block and intersecting tracks in plan view that provide static switching. Examiner responds that Mowll teaches the additional limitations regarding the vertical retraction and Larson ‘743 teaches the remaining limitations, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above. Further, a multitude of references teach vertically retractable wheels in a static switching environment (e.g., Andress III (US 5,592,883), Vyochan (US 2012/0304885), Andreasson et al. (US 7,624,685), and Romine (US 5,289,778)).
Applicant argues that Larson ‘743 and Jacob fail to teach the amended limitations of claim 1 “as a whole.” Examiner responds that Larson ‘743, Mowll and Jacob teach these limitations in combination, as outlined in the rejection above.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the “plan view intersection”, “branch” and “junction” limitations as amended and described in the Specification (see Para. [0009] – [0011] and [0015]). Examiner responds that the base reference Larson ‘743 can be broadly, but reasonably interpreted as satisfying these amended limitations, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the limitations of new claims 22-24. Examiner responds that the base reference Larson ‘743 can be broadly, but reasonably interpreted as satisfying these newly added limitations, as outlined in the rejection of the respective claims above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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 on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights